Religious Nonsense

Calling somebody stupid is not "calling out" their ideas.

Let us know when you have any dots.

That's what I'm saying.

Again, that's what I'm saying. The values are what they are, atheism or no atheism.

That's what I'm saying.

Or atheists.

Only by you. Maybe it's time to stop playing with the branding iron. You're burning yourself more than me.

If you think I did, explain.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You and your petty vendetta: When did I ever make that claim that atheists should?

Please provide the evidence. I mean, you didn't just make that up all tit-for-tat, rubber-glue, right?

Yeah, well, I get that from trolls a lot. Remember that one of the reasons we put up with your sort of trolling is because we show specific favor to atheists. In fact, atheists are one of the main reasons we don't enforce rational discussion.

That's called a vendetta, and you're just screeching in fallacy.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You could say that teaching things which aren't true is a bad way to run a society, which depends on making good decisions based on what is, not how one would like things to be.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No you didn't . You posted this;

Which I countered with the same question from an atheist perspective.
I asked the question.

I think I just did.[/QUOTE]

 

At least I don't kill people because they disagree with me on my atheist views. I respect the rights of people and I make every accomodation to afford all their rights. I can vehemently disagree with any point of view, as long as it is founded on fact. And you, Tiassa, went way over the line with your smug speculative prejudicial slurs.

I do expect civil reciprocation, not veiled ad hominems, casting doubt on my motives.
Damn, you make me angry, I am not learning anything....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yeah, well, I get that from trolls a lot. Remember that one of the reasons we put up with your sort of trolling is because we show specific favor to atheists. In fact, atheists are one of the main reasons we don't enforce rational discussion.

that is a bizzare attitude

 

Right.

See, but it's a pointless question, just fallacious, tit-for-tat, rubber-glue vendetta.

Again:

Atheist 1: Human values as alternative to religious belief. (#208↑)

Inquiry: Human values, sure, but what is the rational justification of those values? (#209↑)

Atheist 2: Explain the theist's "rational justification of these human values". (#215↑)​

To have "countered with the same question from an atheist perspective" leaves you asking a particularly meaningless question. It is not the theist's job to write the atheist's argument. But, hey, at least you're able to say you "countered with the same question from an atheist perspective".

And yet you go out of your way to disrupt discourse with meaningless questions, but, hey, at least you "countered with the same question from an atheist perspective". No, really, you "countered with the same question from an atheist perspective" without regard to whether doing so made any logical sense. As matters of fact go, yeah, so much for founding on fact.

Assessments of what you have already done are not necessarily prejudicial.

Let me see if I can soften this up a bit so as not to hurt your feelings as badly: Do you expect some manner of tabula rasa from thread to thread? No, you're not the only one I've wondered about over the years. It comes up from time to time.

Remember, this carries over between threads. Personally, I find it ironic that two disputes derived from a single episode display similar vendetta behavior. But, sure, just go out of your way to be fallacious and disruptive across two threads for the sake of judgmentalism and pursuit of satisfaction, and go ahead and "expect civil reciprocation".

So ... yeah. Good one.

Well, you're too busy judging theism as severely wanting in moral and ethical behavior according to "theist tenets" you have yet to demonstrate any awareness of. Well, that is, when you're not too busy judging according to atheist assignations of theistic duty. But at least you "countered with the same question from an atheist perspective".

You're not learning anything, and I'm still waiting for a discussion worth having. Woo hoo. Welcome to the Religion subforum.

†​

While I really do consider your vendetta puerile, I also find fascinating a weird phenomenon these discussions. Sometimes people make weird accusations that sound elaborate, and it's true this habit generally annoys me, but for the moment I get to try a version of it: Consider that part of the problem is my apparent violation of cult by failing code in not properly reciting creed. One irony of the crossthread overlap really is that you did the same thing I was criticizing Jeeves for; another, though, is that in both threads, dispute arose in response to posts that were not hostile. In Jeeves' case, clarification of a facutal point appears to have upset some atheists, and very strangely it seems the problem is the responsibilities of empowerment. Or maybe not; the pushback included a heap of victimhood, so maybe these atheists just don't perceive any empowerment.

In this thread, Bob's not doing anything wrong, as such; it's just ... well, it should be harder to lose an argument with Musika about certain subjects, but apparently it happens. And I really mean it: Someone passed on a chance to answer an important question, and others swarmed with trope and fallacy, and the resulting mess, for those inclined toward atheistic pride, isn't really anything to be proud of.

In either thread, though, my posts failed to observe customary demand, thus violating basic cult; in not reciting appropriate creed of doctrinal, antireligious statements, I have failed to observe the code describing applicable values. And what that gets in return, apparently, are strings of rubber-glue vendetta bawling about theists, even to such point that you want them to write the atheistic argument, but at the very least, you "countered with the same question from an atheist perspective".

No, really: The persistent religious behavior stands out.

 

Values (morals) by their nature mean the well-being of people or they mean nothing. Analysis of situations to avoid doing harm can be a rational process, starting with physical harm, as codified in our basic laws. In asking the theist how they determine morality, if they answer that they follow God's will, then that cannot be moral, since we don't know if God has the same standard. He may want to cause harm.

 

And by default, ideas of teaching the difference between them without values is less productive than running the gauntlet while naked and on drugs during a student hazing ritual.

So the choice is yours : establish the foundation for these "good ideas" (extra brownie points for making them specific to "atheism", since that is the whole point of the current raucious, gregarious "Hoo-Haa!!") ... or check social media to try and determine how you ended up gaffer taped upside down naked to a mailbox with a splitting headache at 7:30 in the morning.

 

And it was meaningful for you to pose the opposite question?

 

Yes and you make it more difficult having a rational discussion on the possibility and probability of a conscious supernatural entity, unbound by universal constants, and posessing "free will" to create for no apparent reason at all.

My objections to theism are not emotional, they are reasonable....., in spite of your unfounded protestations and premature judgements. My judgement is not premature, it is cautionary from experience. No mafia type Vendettas, I'll leave that to the theists.

Are witnesses to wrong doing now unable to speak up? Whistle blowers are no longer tolerated and branded as disruptive trolls? Where have I heard this before, recently?

 

I would not know what that meant even if I wanted to. I don't believe in false idols.

 

What really stands out, here, is your apparent failure to recognize the underlying subjectivity.

And rational processes are subject to the definitions in play.

I can make up shiny-happy Utopian theses, too, but the scientific logic of it all is undermined by two factors: The limits of my own definitions, and the limits of humanity.

In truth, you shouldn't need this explained to you.

Yeah, but that's a two-bit gaslight in which their answers are subject to your definitions. You kind of make my point for me.

• • •​

Yes, actually.

Yet again:

Atheist 1: Human values as alternative to religious belief. (#208↑)

Inquiry: Human values, sure, but what is the rational justification of those values? (#209↑)

Atheist 2: Explain the theist's "rational justification of these human values". (#215↑)​

In a philosophical back and forth between Musika and Sideshowbob, the latter came to propose "human values" as a counterpoint to religious beliefs, which in turn he describes as "supersititous and backwards".

The Inquiry is checking the assertion of human values against being superstitious and backwards: What is the rational justification of those values?

You, on the other hand, just turn the question around, for the sake of having "countered with the same question from an atheist perspective" regardless of whether your retort actually applies to anything. For the sake of having "countered with the same question from an atheist perspective" you have demanded the theistic rational justification of the atheistic counterpoint to religious values.

Yes, really: You demanded the theistic rational justification of the atheistic counterpoint to religious values. And why? So you could say you have "countered with the same question from an atheist perspective"? Because you don't find it meaningful to check the rational justification for the alternative to what is denounced as backward and superstitious?

Really?

Oh, for fuck sake: What?

No, really—

—what?

Oh, wait:

• ... "rational discussion on the possibility and probability of a conscious supernatural entity, unbound by universal constants, and posessing 'free will' to create" ...

• "I thought that the OP title read; 'Religious Nonsense'. Am I wrong? My answer is perfectly on topic."​

I hold myself answered.

(chortle!)

(guffaw!)

In all these posts you still haven't said anything.

Well, duh.

If you say so.

No, really. Because you're so reliable.

Okay, okay. Tell me another.

 

So apparently describing something one holds to be confused, hypocritical, arrogant, shallow, irrational, presumptive, etc, as "religious" is cogently pejorative;
but referring to religion as a significant source of confusion, hypocrisy, arrogance, irrationality, etc, is not ok.

Meanwhile, in what we might call the Dawkins world of theistic religion, otherwise known as daily life in the US, we have things like this:
http://echidneofthesnakes.blogspot.com/2018/08/trumps-white-evangelical-base.html
The two best demographic predictors of a vote for Trump in the 2016 election were
1) Racial identification
2) Religious identification

The bullshit "if", ubiquitous in overt Abrahamic theists's posting on science forums.

You are?
Time to recheck a few assumptions.

But he is talking about many atheists.

The post quoted refers to theists, not atheists, and no ism at all.

Bringing relevant values to a relevant category was not on the table.
The thread addresses religious nonsense, with a focus on theistic religion. Describing "atheism" as embodying a particular set of values held by all atheists, in such a thread, would be an example.

 

And what does that have to do with me?

And what do someone else's words have to do with me?
But if you want my opinion; Yes, because by your words, every human perspective on morals is subjective to the individual, theist or atheist alike. We develop morals by common consent, not by individual decree.

If I haven't said anything then obviously I haven't said anything that warrants your personal rants. If my posts are unimportant to the general knowledge pool, why do you bother to respond at all, and in addition gratuitously sprinkle ad hominems by the handful?

I have counted several likes by people who otherwise offer solid critique, apparently they agree on several points I made. How do you square your derogatory comments with their approval? Are they stupid also? Can't have it both ways.

I make an observation, you come along and declare my posts useless and simplistic. Well, I'd like to know how those other posters feel about your general condemnation of my observations about this ridiculous discussion , which you now have completely ruined with your "personal" observations about people's character and intelligence. In your zeal to discredit me, you have become the troll.......do I care? I did once, now you have reduced yourself to a mild annoyance.

Drop this Tiassa, you're way out of line. You know just as little about the "spiritual world" as anyone else here and if you think you have "superior knowledge", then you are practicing religious exclusivity and prejudice.

On a thread about Religious Nonsense, I do not have to justify my atheist beliefs, just my beliefs about Religious Nonsense. Else that would be turning to OP upside down and backward, as theist are wont to do, no?

Why don't you offer a declarative opinion about the OP question, instead of opining about posters. Be a useful contributor to the discussion, for a change.

 

LOL, you are something else. You agree "it can be argued", but now you are commenting on my shitty argument style. If your mastery in "argument" is so great, why not offer a substantive contribution to the "argument", and teach me something rather than making an bore of yourself.

 

Psychology? Philosophy?

I define religion as counter productive to self discipline. It demands complete obedience and seeks to expand constantly to the point of condemning any other belief or non-belief as apostasy which will get you to hell, to suffer forever and ever. Even as God "loves" you!!!!! (NOT)
That's forced discipline (fear), not enlightenment.

 

So out of curiousity, what do you call religion that doesn't condemn any and all other belief? (Or project eternal hell? Etc)

Or for that matter, what do you call the (mis?)represenration of science that goes around condemning any other belief, etc?

 

How much grease do you think it takes to prevent a dog's tail from curling up?

 

No, no, nooooooooooo, that won't do at all.