If your using master Biomancer you should probably have planeswalkers would create tokens! Like Garruk. Or even try Bloodline keeper
I originally tried Primal Hunter, but the 3 green casting cost was too hard to pull off in a tri-color deck, he was a dead card in my hand more often then not. Vraska hits the table easier (and on the same turn as Garruk) and demands that my opponent answer her.
Yes, I would prefer Garruk if it weren't for that damnable 3G in his cost. He really does fit the strategy I am going for better.
Bloodline Keeper is interesting though... and a turn cheaper than the big PWs I've looked at... Hmm.
Quote from twicky_kid »
Gloom sugoen is what you are needing. Being able to block the aggressive decks and attack into them is big. Right now the aggro decks are depending on combat tricks (giant growth, rampager, and rancor) to punch in their final damage. That plan is pretty much auto lose against us if we have a stable board.
Gloom allows us to get there. Also if you decide to play mutilates he forces olverextension.
Gloom Surgeon looks excellent and will be appearing in my sideboard to versus aggro. Thanks.
...unfortunately, I don't think Mutilate will work with my current land... but I may already want to invest heavier in black if I add the Bloodline Keepers...
Grisly Salvage fills my graveyard with instants and sorceries for the Pikes and gives me snapcasting options. Hopefully they net me early Quirion Dryads or gaurantee a 4th turn Master Biomancer. The Biomancers make everything big, especially if i can get a Runechanter's Pike equipped on one. Snapcaster Mage increases my removal and snapcasting spells helps bump up the Dryads.
Still hacking out a definite list (as you can most obviously tell from my lands), so suggestions for improvement are welcome.
A bit less control than many of the lists I see here, but I like that it lets me build some massive finishers.
Why is that anyone in a position capable of spoiling cards always seems to possess the worst cell phone camera produced in the last decade?
Anyway... as we have come to expect from the Duel Deck series, they are not exactly incredible decklists, but this one does look better to me than the last few they have put out. I might pick one up for the alternate arts.
...and of course the ultimate play in Magic:
[first turn] Draw, play Island, Go.
Yes, that is a finisher. It just usually takes the other people a dozen turns to realize it.
Hmm, I may get in on this one. Birds don't have a lord yet, right?
Are we supposed to post our WIPs somewhere or are you just supposed to trust that everyone came up with their finished work on their own throughout the course of the contest? On other sites, progress reports are usually good for feedback and suggestions too...
I've been missing my old Type 2 Valakut deck lately and my Prime Times are free from Wolf Run, so I figured I would bring the dreaded molten pinnacle back to my multiplayer group. Make them start thinking Helldozer is a viable card in their decks again, y'know?
Anyway, I used to run my standard deck in small multiplayer groups with pretty good results (Valakut breaks the multiplayer rule of staying away from targeted damage and unfortunately while it's burn is massive, comes in a finite amount).
Pretty much unrestricted card list means (I've been playing since '95, the only thing I won't cnsider is Power 9) this should be brutal. Don't worry, my group deserves it. lol
Including in the list:
4x Primeval Titan (drops any land I need into play)
2x+ Green Sun's Zenith (moar Prime Time! ...or can fetch an Acidic Slime or Avenger of Zendikar if needed) Avenger of Zendikar (puts bodies in the way or can be used as an alternate win-con)
Thinking hard about: Cavern of Souls (to gaurantee that the Prime Times get into play?) Stomping Ground (is the drawback worth another GR dual land that can be counted as a mountain?) Genesis Wave (always fun, drops lands, and I will have the ramp to power it early in this deck) Scapeshift (dump half my lands to pull out the other half; kind of the deck's Hail Mary pass) Prismatic Omen (now everything is a mountain!) Furnace of Rath (to stretch that finite valakut damage a bit, but could backfire on me hard) Life from the Loam (land recycling)
Any suggestions or decklists that you can see from the above? I am also looking for your opinions on what is the all-time best green ramp package to get all of the mountains I am going to need onto the battlefield.
I have religious(Christian) family. They often start debates about God. I got sick of arguing with them so i said "Since you're the one saying Christianity is true, it's your responsibility to prove it so". But that wasn't good enough. I still have a really annoying sibling that loves to start arguments with me over this in front of people who agree with him.
Anyone else have this problem? And what are some ways to get someone like him to shut up.
Argument from authority is only a fallacy if you say X must be true because Y says it when Y is not a valid source on X. Otherwise, it's a perfectly valid argument.
It doesn't have to be a fallacious statement to cause a discussion to fall into it's trap.
The argument from authority (or in this case, the lack thereof) is merely a way to avoid the issue because it will turn the topic into a debate about the importance or credibility of whatever authority is brought forth and will do nothing to further the discussion of the topic.
Yeah, The Bible has an antiquated view of the roles of men and women.
How do books inspired or co-wrote by an omniscient deity become antiquated? Has our morality surpassed that of the god of the Bible? What about those who claim all morality comes from this source?
Quote from InfinityAlarm »
Let's not pretend though, that sexism would vanish if everyone stopped believing in The Bible. There are sexist atheists, sexist Christians, sexist Hindus, etc.
No such thing was implied.
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." ~Steven Weinberg
Quote from InfinityAlarm »
What are we supposed to be debating exactly?
How the popular monotheistic religions promote sexism.
Show me your certificate that identifies you as an expert in the identification of serious mental disorders in people you have never met. Or show me such an expert who has shares your opinion and has published it in a credible psychology journal.
You want me to supply you with an argument from authority? o.O
"It's true because X says it's true, and he is smart so there" usually isn't seen as kosher in discussions like these.
Quote from HTime »
What's that, you can't do that? Guess I was right and you do have no clue about what you are talking about.
Perhaps you could argue how it doesn't fit the definition I provided?
This thread reminds me of Richard Dawkins' religiosity poll in the God Delusion.
It used these choices:
How certain are you that god exists?
Strong theist. 100 percent probability of God. In the words of C. G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.'
Very high probability but short of 100 percent. De facto theist. 'I cannot know for certain, but strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.'
Higher than 50 percent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.'
Exactly 50 percent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's existance and non-existance are exactly equiprobable.'
Lower than 50 percent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. 'I don't know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be sceptical.'
Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think god is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'
Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung "knows" there is one.'
Quote from Richard Dawkins »
I'd be surprised to meet many people in category 7, but I include it for symmetry with category 1, which is well populated. It is in the nature of faith that one is capable, like Jung, of holding a belief without adequate reason to do so (Jung also believed that particular books on his shelf spontaneously exploded with a loud bang).
Atheists do not have faith; and reason alone could not propel one to total conviction that anything definately does not exist. Hence category 7 is in practice rather emptier than its opposite number, category 1, which has many devoted inhabitants. I count myself in category 6, but leaning towards 7 - I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden.
This is slightly off-topic, but killing a person in order to stop a shooting spree does not violate the 6th Commandment. The Commandment is against Murder, not killing ("thou shalt not kill" is a mistranslation), and killing someone in defense of other lives that are in immanent danger is not murder.
Depending upon your translation of the 6th Commandment, you may be correct. It does not speak against killing another in self-defense, but Jesus himself does:
"You have heard the law that says the punishment must match the injury: ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say, do not resist an evil person! If someone slaps you on the right cheek, offer the other cheek also. If you are sued in court and your shirt is taken from you, give your coat, too. If a soldier demands that you carry his gear for a mile, carry it two miles. Give to those who ask, and don’t turn away from those who want to borrow." ~Matthew 5:38-42
...not only that, but when apprehended in the Garden of Gethsemane, one of his disciples rushes in to defend him, cutting off the ear of one of the men with a sword. Jesus rebukes the disciple for doing so and then heals the injured man's ear.
...particularly how sexism is endorsed by the abrahamic religions.
I'm going to open this with a statement that former US president Jimmy Carter made a few years ago:
Losing my religion for equality
Women and girls have been discriminated against for too long in a twisted interpretation of the word of God.
Quote from Jimmy Carter »
I HAVE been a practising Christian all my life and a deacon and Bible teacher for many years. My faith is a source of strength and comfort to me, as religious beliefs are to hundreds of millions of people around the world. So my decision to sever my ties with the Southern Baptist Convention, after six decades, was painful and difficult. It was, however, an unavoidable decision when the convention's leaders, quoting a few carefully selected Bible verses and claiming that Eve was created second to Adam and was responsible for original sin, ordained that women must be "subservient" to their husbands and prohibited from serving as deacons, pastors or chaplains in the military service.
This view that women are somehow inferior to men is not restricted to one religion or belief. Women are prevented from playing a full and equal role in many faiths. Nor, tragically, does its influence stop at the walls of the church, mosque, synagogue or temple. This discrimination, unjustifiably attributed to a Higher Authority, has provided a reason or excuse for the deprivation of women's equal rights across the world for centuries.
At its most repugnant, the belief that women must be subjugated to the wishes of men excuses slavery, violence, forced prostitution, genital mutilation and national laws that omit rape as a crime. But it also costs many millions of girls and women control over their own bodies and lives, and continues to deny them fair access to education, health, employment and influence within their own communities.
The impact of these religious beliefs touches every aspect of our lives. They help explain why in many countries boys are educated before girls; why girls are told when and whom they must marry; and why many face enormous and unacceptable risks in pregnancy and childbirth because their basic health needs are not met.
In some Islamic nations, women are restricted in their movements, punished for permitting the exposure of an arm or ankle, deprived of education, prohibited from driving a car or competing with men for a job. If a woman is raped, she is often most severely punished as the guilty party in the crime.
The same discriminatory thinking lies behind the continuing gender gap in pay and why there are still so few women in office in the West. The root of this prejudice lies deep in our histories, but its impact is felt every day. It is not women and girls alone who suffer. It damages all of us. The evidence shows that investing in women and girls delivers major benefits for society. An educated woman has healthier children. She is more likely to send them to school. She earns more and invests what she earns in her family.
It is simply self-defeating for any community to discriminate against half its population. We need to challenge these self-serving and outdated attitudes and practices - as we are seeing in Iran where women are at the forefront of the battle for democracy and freedom.
I understand, however, why many political leaders can be reluctant about stepping into this minefield. Religion, and tradition, are powerful and sensitive areas to challenge. But my fellow Elders and I, who come from many faiths and backgrounds, no longer need to worry about winning votes or avoiding controversy - and we are deeply committed to challenging injustice wherever we see it.
The Elders are an independent group of eminent global leaders, brought together by former South African president Nelson Mandela, who offer their influence and experience to support peace building, help address major causes of human suffering and promote the shared interests of humanity. We have decided to draw particular attention to the responsibility of religious and traditional leaders in ensuring equality and human rights and have recently published a statement that declares: "The justification of discrimination against women and girls on grounds of religion or tradition, as if it were prescribed by a Higher Authority, is unacceptable."
We are calling on all leaders to challenge and change the harmful teachings and practices, no matter how ingrained, which justify discrimination against women. We ask, in particular, that leaders of all religions have the courage to acknowledge and emphasise the positive messages of dignity and equality that all the world's major faiths share.
The carefully selected verses found in the Holy Scriptures to justify the superiority of men owe more to time and place - and the determination of male leaders to hold onto their influence - than eternal truths. Similar biblical excerpts could be found to support the approval of slavery and the timid acquiescence to oppressive rulers.
I am also familiar with vivid descriptions in the same Scriptures in which women are revered as pre-eminent leaders. During the years of the early Christian church women served as deacons, priests, bishops, apostles, teachers and prophets. It wasn't until the fourth century that dominant Christian leaders, all men, twisted and distorted Holy Scriptures to perpetuate their ascendant positions within the religious hierarchy.
The truth is that male religious leaders have had - and still have - an option to interpret holy teachings either to exalt or subjugate women. They have, for their own selfish ends, overwhelmingly chosen the latter. Their continuing choice provides the foundation or justification for much of the pervasive persecution and abuse of women throughout the world. This is in clear violation not just of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but also the teachings of Jesus Christ, the Apostle Paul, Moses and the prophets, Muhammad, and founders of other great religions - all of whom have called for proper and equitable treatment of all the children of God. It is time we had the courage to challenge these views.
I don't completely agree with President Carter. He seems to think that inequality stems from misinterpretations of biblical teachings, but there is no misinterpretation as the Bible repeatedly makes it clear on just how low it's opinion of women is.
Quote from 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 »
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
Quote from 1 Timothy 2:11-14 »
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
Quote from Genesis 3:16 »
Unto the woman [God] said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
Quote from 1 Corinthians 11:3 »
But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
Quote from Ephesians 5:22-24 »
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
Quote from Colossians 3 3:18 »
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.
There is a large difference between what Yahweh expects of men and what he expects of women. He instructs men to love their wives but instructs women to be submissive to their husbands.
These verses about the relationship between men and women aren't the only places that the Bible makes it's sexism evident either. Women are blamed for most societal ills from start to finish in the book. Also, most of the direct instructions from god address men or males specifically. Why is this? Because women were thought of as little more than breeding animals to be owned, bought, and traded (even in the 10 commandments they are listed along with property).
You clearly have no idea what the word superstitious means. I wish atheist will just stop using that word. Not only is insulting and demeaning is also not true.
I've come to realize that you guys like to reduce topics down to games of semantics.
su·per·sti·tious (spr-stshs) adj.
1. Inclined to believe in superstition.
2. Of, characterized by, or proceeding from superstition.
su·per·sti·tion (spr-stshn) n.
1. An irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.
2.
a. A belief, practice, or rite irrationally maintained by ignorance of the laws of nature or by faith in magic or chance.
b. A fearful or abject state of mind resulting from such ignorance or irrationality.
c. Idolatry.
My use of "superstitious" refers to the 1st definition of "superstition" which applies to any faith based assertion.
Quote from bakgat »
The guys mother is probably just concerned for her child. It is clear that for most religious people the demonic images in mtg is a issue. If they have an objection to it it is their rights as parents to prohibit their children from using it.
Perhaps that is true legally, but is it right?
Quote from bakgat »
Lets not start and criticizing the way parents raise their children. They do their best most of the time
In dealing with the other parents at my children's school, I really have to disagree with this. Most people shouldn't have kids (and like you say in a later comment, many parents seem to feel that the extent of their responsibility is to "send them to school and hope for the best").
Quote from bakgat »
and if this mother thinks these games are bad for her children she is entitled to ban it from her house.
True, but this thread's intention was to explore the reasoning behind that decision.
Quote from bakgat »
Considering you have two women kissing each other in your sig you should not be surprised if parents dont let their children play mtg.
Is that what you see them doing? Would it somehow be more acceptable to you if it depicted Jace and Chandra instead?
It's also worth noting that Magic marks itself as a PG-13 game...
Here's the thing: as much as I am exasperated by parents who won't let their kids play MtG, D&D, etc. or read Harry Potter because of the allegedly "Satanic" themes, such stuff is a far cry from child abuse. If you want to see religious indoctrination correlating with child abuse, look at something like a polygamous fundamentalist Mormon sect.
I fully understand that there is worse (genital mutilation sponsored by all 3 of the abrahamic religions is one example).
While the effect upon the child is far less in this case than many other examples we could bring to the discussion, it does stem from the same thought process that produces the others.
Quote from PandasRPeople »
The kid whose mom throws away his Magic cards isn't going to grow up maladapted or scarred; he's just going to be frustrated and pissed at his mom... which is, you know, pretty much the story of every teenager everywhere. Then hopefully once he becomes an adult and moves out, he can go back to quietly enjoying his fantasy games and his misinformed (but nonetheless well-meaning) mother will be none the wiser.
You don't think that the child's mental state is affected at all from this? Of course it is, that is why the mother is bothering to teach the lesson in the first place. She is directing him to form a belief and if you understand the lesson being taught, that belief ranges far wider than just which toys he should play with.
Well, you can show your hand like that all you want, but the point is that then you have to prove it. You haven't.
Disregard it for now.
From past experience with forum discussions, I expect the religious to prove it for me soon enough.
Quote from Mockingbird »
Here's where things get really messy because you only assume someone has lost contact with reality because it doesn't match your idea of what reality is (or mine). And there is a long history of philosophy that suggests that we don't even know what reality is and remains skeptical that we will be able to find out about it (Plato, Descartes, Kant, and Schopenhauer are the first four that come to mind; I'm sure Blinking Spirit would be able to give a more detailed list).
Ugh, philosophers and reality...
If our definitions of reality were really so arbitrary in day to day use, I would be interested in hearing how anyone could be diagnosed with a psychotic disorder or even how we manage to function at all. No, there are many things that we may agree with the religious on as being "real". We can find that common ground and build our arguments from there.
Quote from Mockingbird »
And that's why this discussion is going to be so much fun... because I can imagine all these different scenarios of do or don't, but I do not have a formula for defining what we should or should not imprint on children.
A 'psychosis' refers to an abnormal condition of the mind. It is misuse to have it denote arbitrary false beliefs.
Psychosis noun
a serious mental disorder (as schizophrenia) characterized by defective or lost contact with reality often with hallucinations or delusions
...seems to be applicable to a belief that a supernatural force is corrupting your kids through a plastic doll.
Quote from HTime »
'Abuse' seems to be another term that you like to use liberally.
Semantics seems to be the game you like to play.
Even if you would personally use the word differently, I suspect that you know the meanings that I intend. If I have to define every word in this discussion, this is going to be a very long thread.
As for "abuse": a·buse[v. uh-byooz; n. uh-byoos] Show IPA verb, a·bused, a·bus·ing, noun
verb (used with object)
1. to use wrongly or improperly; misuse: to abuse one's authority.
2. to treat in a harmful, injurious, or offensive way: to abuse a horse; to abuse one's eyesight.
3. to speak insultingly, harshly, and unjustly to or about; revile; malign.
4. to commit sexual assault upon.
5. Obsolete . to deceive or mislead. noun
6. wrong or improper use; misuse: the abuse of privileges.
7. harshly or coarsely insulting language: The officer heaped abuse on his men.
8. bad or improper treatment; maltreatment: The child was subjected to cruel abuse.
9. a corrupt or improper practice or custom: the abuses of a totalitarian regime.
10. rape or sexual assault.
...my "liberal" use of the word is fine, because as you can see, meanings have been "liberally" applied to it.
All of the good done by religion can also be done without it. Religions wave their charitable work as an advertisement for their faith and in many cases use their "charity" as a recruitment tool, which lessens the claimed benevolence of the work.
A case could also be made that in many cases, religious charity does more harm than it helps, such as the case of the Catholic church in Africa, where it's demonization of condom use is responsible for countless deaths that could have been otherwise prevented.
I originally tried Primal Hunter, but the 3 green casting cost was too hard to pull off in a tri-color deck, he was a dead card in my hand more often then not. Vraska hits the table easier (and on the same turn as Garruk) and demands that my opponent answer her.
Yes, I would prefer Garruk if it weren't for that damnable 3G in his cost. He really does fit the strategy I am going for better.
Bloodline Keeper is interesting though... and a turn cheaper than the big PWs I've looked at... Hmm.
Gloom Surgeon looks excellent and will be appearing in my sideboard to versus aggro. Thanks.
...unfortunately, I don't think Mutilate will work with my current land... but I may already want to invest heavier in black if I add the Bloodline Keepers...
First roughed out list:
4 Vampire Nighthawk
3 Master Biomancer
3 Quirion Dryad
4 Snapcaster Mage
Planeswalkers (3):
1 Liliana of the Veil
2 Vraska the Unseen
Equipment (2):
2 Runechanter's Pike
Spells (17):
4 Grisly Salvage
3 Abrupt Decay
4 Simic Charm
2 Essence Scatter
4 Syncopate
4 Breeding Pool
4 Overgrown Tomb
4 Watery Grave
4 Drowned Catacomb
4 Hinterland Harbor
4 Woodland Cemetery
Grisly Salvage fills my graveyard with instants and sorceries for the Pikes and gives me snapcasting options. Hopefully they net me early Quirion Dryads or gaurantee a 4th turn Master Biomancer. The Biomancers make everything big, especially if i can get a Runechanter's Pike equipped on one. Snapcaster Mage increases my removal and snapcasting spells helps bump up the Dryads.
Still hacking out a definite list (as you can most obviously tell from my lands), so suggestions for improvement are welcome.
A bit less control than many of the lists I see here, but I like that it lets me build some massive finishers.
Anyway... as we have come to expect from the Duel Deck series, they are not exactly incredible decklists, but this one does look better to me than the last few they have put out. I might pick one up for the alternate arts.
Moat and Luminarch Ascension
Splinter Twin or Kiki-Jiki, Mirror Breaker coupled with Deceiver Exarch or Pestermite
Emrakul, the Eons Torn, Eye of Ugin, search for Emrakul, the Eons Torn, repeat ad infinitum.
Stasis and Chronatog or Echoing Truth on an Isochron Scepter (because having friends is over-rated)
...and of course the ultimate play in Magic:
[first turn] Draw, play Island, Go.
Yes, that is a finisher. It just usually takes the other people a dozen turns to realize it.
Are we supposed to post our WIPs somewhere or are you just supposed to trust that everyone came up with their finished work on their own throughout the course of the contest? On other sites, progress reports are usually good for feedback and suggestions too...
Anyway, I used to run my standard deck in small multiplayer groups with pretty good results (Valakut breaks the multiplayer rule of staying away from targeted damage and unfortunately while it's burn is massive, comes in a finite amount).
Pretty much unrestricted card list means (I've been playing since '95, the only thing I won't cnsider is Power 9) this should be brutal. Don't worry, my group deserves it. lol
Including in the list:
4x Primeval Titan (drops any land I need into play)
2x+ Green Sun's Zenith (moar Prime Time! ...or can fetch an Acidic Slime or Avenger of Zendikar if needed)
Avenger of Zendikar (puts bodies in the way or can be used as an alternate win-con)
4x Valakut, the molten pinnacle (obviously)
4x Vesuva (moar valakut!)
4x Taiga (it's a forest, it's a mountain, it's both)
Thinking hard about:
Cavern of Souls (to gaurantee that the Prime Times get into play?)
Stomping Ground (is the drawback worth another GR dual land that can be counted as a mountain?)
Genesis Wave (always fun, drops lands, and I will have the ramp to power it early in this deck)
Scapeshift (dump half my lands to pull out the other half; kind of the deck's Hail Mary pass)
Prismatic Omen (now everything is a mountain!)
Furnace of Rath (to stretch that finite valakut damage a bit, but could backfire on me hard)
Life from the Loam (land recycling)
Possible ramp package candidates:
Rampant Growth (pretty much defines ramp)
Harrow
Cultivate
Oracle of Mul Daya
Expedition Map (can search up valakut/vesuva)
Overgrown Battlement (really only considered because I will need some early blockers)
Llanowar Elves (see above)
Birds of Paradise (see above above)
Solemn Simulacrum (expensive for ramp, but provides a body and replaces itself when it dies)
Any suggestions or decklists that you can see from the above? I am also looking for your opinions on what is the all-time best green ramp package to get all of the mountains I am going to need onto the battlefield.
It's best to ignore him.
http://cectic.com/comics/069.png
Leeched image linkified and warned.
It doesn't have to be a fallacious statement to cause a discussion to fall into it's trap.
The argument from authority (or in this case, the lack thereof) is merely a way to avoid the issue because it will turn the topic into a debate about the importance or credibility of whatever authority is brought forth and will do nothing to further the discussion of the topic.
How do books inspired or co-wrote by an omniscient deity become antiquated? Has our morality surpassed that of the god of the Bible? What about those who claim all morality comes from this source?
No such thing was implied.
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." ~Steven Weinberg
How the popular monotheistic religions promote sexism.
You want me to supply you with an argument from authority? o.O
"It's true because X says it's true, and he is smart so there" usually isn't seen as kosher in discussions like these.
Perhaps you could argue how it doesn't fit the definition I provided?
It used these choices:
How certain are you that god exists?
Strong theist. 100 percent probability of God. In the words of C. G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.'
Very high probability but short of 100 percent. De facto theist. 'I cannot know for certain, but strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.'
Higher than 50 percent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.'
Exactly 50 percent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's existance and non-existance are exactly equiprobable.'
Lower than 50 percent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. 'I don't know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be sceptical.'
Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think god is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'
Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung "knows" there is one.'
Depending upon your translation of the 6th Commandment, you may be correct. It does not speak against killing another in self-defense, but Jesus himself does:
"You have heard the law that says the punishment must match the injury: ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say, do not resist an evil person! If someone slaps you on the right cheek, offer the other cheek also. If you are sued in court and your shirt is taken from you, give your coat, too. If a soldier demands that you carry his gear for a mile, carry it two miles. Give to those who ask, and don’t turn away from those who want to borrow." ~Matthew 5:38-42
...not only that, but when apprehended in the Garden of Gethsemane, one of his disciples rushes in to defend him, cutting off the ear of one of the men with a sword. Jesus rebukes the disciple for doing so and then heals the injured man's ear.
I'm going to open this with a statement that former US president Jimmy Carter made a few years ago:
Losing my religion for equality
Women and girls have been discriminated against for too long in a twisted interpretation of the word of God.
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/losing-my-religion-for-equality-20090714-dk0v.html?page=-1
I don't completely agree with President Carter. He seems to think that inequality stems from misinterpretations of biblical teachings, but there is no misinterpretation as the Bible repeatedly makes it clear on just how low it's opinion of women is.
There is a large difference between what Yahweh expects of men and what he expects of women. He instructs men to love their wives but instructs women to be submissive to their husbands.
These verses about the relationship between men and women aren't the only places that the Bible makes it's sexism evident either. Women are blamed for most societal ills from start to finish in the book. Also, most of the direct instructions from god address men or males specifically. Why is this? Because women were thought of as little more than breeding animals to be owned, bought, and traded (even in the 10 commandments they are listed along with property).
I've come to realize that you guys like to reduce topics down to games of semantics.
su·per·sti·tious (spr-stshs)
adj.
1. Inclined to believe in superstition.
2. Of, characterized by, or proceeding from superstition.
su·per·sti·tion (spr-stshn)
n.
1. An irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.
2.
a. A belief, practice, or rite irrationally maintained by ignorance of the laws of nature or by faith in magic or chance.
b. A fearful or abject state of mind resulting from such ignorance or irrationality.
c. Idolatry.
My use of "superstitious" refers to the 1st definition of "superstition" which applies to any faith based assertion.
Perhaps that is true legally, but is it right?
In dealing with the other parents at my children's school, I really have to disagree with this. Most people shouldn't have kids (and like you say in a later comment, many parents seem to feel that the extent of their responsibility is to "send them to school and hope for the best").
True, but this thread's intention was to explore the reasoning behind that decision.
Is that what you see them doing? Would it somehow be more acceptable to you if it depicted Jace and Chandra instead?
It's also worth noting that Magic marks itself as a PG-13 game...
I fully understand that there is worse (genital mutilation sponsored by all 3 of the abrahamic religions is one example).
While the effect upon the child is far less in this case than many other examples we could bring to the discussion, it does stem from the same thought process that produces the others.
You don't think that the child's mental state is affected at all from this? Of course it is, that is why the mother is bothering to teach the lesson in the first place. She is directing him to form a belief and if you understand the lesson being taught, that belief ranges far wider than just which toys he should play with.
Disregard it for now.
From past experience with forum discussions, I expect the religious to prove it for me soon enough.
Ugh, philosophers and reality...
If our definitions of reality were really so arbitrary in day to day use, I would be interested in hearing how anyone could be diagnosed with a psychotic disorder or even how we manage to function at all. No, there are many things that we may agree with the religious on as being "real". We can find that common ground and build our arguments from there.
I hope so, I love topics like this.
Psychosis
noun
a serious mental disorder (as schizophrenia) characterized by defective or lost contact with reality often with hallucinations or delusions
...seems to be applicable to a belief that a supernatural force is corrupting your kids through a plastic doll.
Semantics seems to be the game you like to play.
Even if you would personally use the word differently, I suspect that you know the meanings that I intend. If I have to define every word in this discussion, this is going to be a very long thread.
As for "abuse":
a·buse [v. uh-byooz; n. uh-byoos] Show IPA verb, a·bused, a·bus·ing, noun
verb (used with object)
1. to use wrongly or improperly; misuse: to abuse one's authority.
2. to treat in a harmful, injurious, or offensive way: to abuse a horse; to abuse one's eyesight.
3. to speak insultingly, harshly, and unjustly to or about; revile; malign.
4. to commit sexual assault upon.
5. Obsolete . to deceive or mislead.
noun
6. wrong or improper use; misuse: the abuse of privileges.
7. harshly or coarsely insulting language: The officer heaped abuse on his men.
8. bad or improper treatment; maltreatment: The child was subjected to cruel abuse.
9. a corrupt or improper practice or custom: the abuses of a totalitarian regime.
10. rape or sexual assault.
...my "liberal" use of the word is fine, because as you can see, meanings have been "liberally" applied to it.
A case could also be made that in many cases, religious charity does more harm than it helps, such as the case of the Catholic church in Africa, where it's demonization of condom use is responsible for countless deaths that could have been otherwise prevented.