Tiassa trolls a thread about religion

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

It's something Christians said, James.

I mean, that's the thing, you've apparently studied "religion" and "theists" for at least twenty years, and you still don't know these basics?

Really?

That's kind of the thing with this thread: Here we are, at the intersection where unsupported beliefs having detrimental impacts on other people are now infused into governance, and for the seasoned hand, the obvious thing to do is challenge from ignorance. "Are some of the commandments in the bible no longer applicable these days? How do you tell which ones no longer apply and which ones are still important?" Tell me, please, that's not your A-game↑.

Actually, to be fair, what you said, in 2019↗, was, "As it happens, I'm something of an expert on atheist critiques of religion, having 'read up' on them extensively in the past." That retort, while it missed the point in its moment, actually illustrates an important difference. You might complain about "religion" and "theists", but apparently haven't really studied the subjects. (Maybe that's wny my posts on religion go over your head↗.)

So, a couple things about this thread, James: This isn't your everyday, two-bit churching; Americans are experiencing a societal circumstance that is pretty much precisely what evangelical atheists pretend to guard against. In its way, for atheists, this is their hour.

(Clearly, they're not up to the task. It's a disappointing circumstance, but not necessarily surprising, at this point; nor was it intended to be a part of this thread. That point just happened, kind of on its own.)​

It's one thing to confront Christians (e.g., #49↑, "You're a Christian, right?"; #53↑, "So I won't hear you talking about 'atheist morality' again?") but the underlying subject of this thread also happens to share significant overlap with the demographics you so passionately defend in the "Blind Spot"↗ discussion: "There are clues to be found, if you put in a little effort in trying to find out the truth, rather than just making assumptions that make you feel comfortable."

And also the part about how it's "simpler" to "blame" them "for being bad people to the core". Remember that part? "Because that requires less thinking, I guess. It also means you're free to demonise people and misrepresent (some of) them. And some people just can't help themselves when it comes to trying to demonise other people."

Because, sure, other reasons motivate some voters, and we might have whatever discussion about what that means compared to history, but this is the same Christian nationalism that we've discussed at Sciforums since 2007↗; see also, a 2014↗ recollection that is about as ironic as you might expect of Christianist political irony.

And inasmuch as you might try to make various excuses for the presence of any number of supremacist, crazy bits in the conservative politic, yes, actually, these Christian nationalists are among the groups that most assuredly have been pursuing those durable, supremacist passions the whole time.

And they currently hold one house of Congress.

If juvenilia was effective, it would have worked by now.

Seriously, a discussion about chocolate Easter bunnies wouldn't last long at Sciforums before devolving into the same old quiz show from ignorance.

Try it this way: Is the reason threads go this way really that the critics can't do any better?

It's just a strange contrast, James. Like posts #2↑ and 3↑. I mean: Are you new? No, of course not. So, why start there?

Or, maybe it simply takes ten paragraphs to cover three sentences: Speaker Johnson identifies as Christian. Biblically, Jesus Christ approached these commands in a particular way. The part of the assessment that ought to be easy is that Johnson does not appear to be following Jesus. And if it takes ten paragraphs to work around simply asking, "Your point being?" it's true, you didn't leave much to work with. (Inasmuch as the short form in #1↑ was insufficient, #3 reads like a ten-paragraph reiteration in large part because it is, as there wasn't much else to do except try to clarify according to unknown needs.)

Here, try this:

Jesus did say to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's (Mt.22-21, Mk. 12.17, Lk. 20.25).

You can figure that out, right? I mean, you're not new.

No, really. This one's easy.

Spoiler

​

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So, let me make sure I understand you: You're going to drag whatever thread off-topic if you want?

You know, James, it doesn't matter how many times I point to your own words, you just keep denying.

At some point it's reasonable enough to wonoder if the problem is that you can't do any better.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

James, I've done that so many times.

Now you just challenge anew.

And after hiding part of the record from me in order to protect yourself from criticism.

But, sure, there was the time you gave an infraction for calling someone a racist; even several years later, you still held the line that it should be okay to behave that way. That's the way your rule has worked, for years, James: People ought to be allowed to attend the stations of racism, but calling them racist is inappropriate. It's one of your objections to obliging people to rational discourse, that some political views might be silenced. Well, right, if it's "religion", you understand the problem. If it's racism, well, not so much. Or, at the very least, you need people to be able to make certain kinds of unsubstantiated, insupportable arguments.

And we can reach back over fifteen years on this, James.

So, as you continue to stuff straw, James, maybe take a moment to think about the fact that you're simply demanding what you've already chosen to not answer↗. You even set aside a specific splinter thread for the sake of making demands, and then ducked out↗. And now, here you are, making new demands?

And remember, I also asked↗ what you thought they were doing. And, again, you just didn't want to talk about it↗.

You're willing to fire me over stuff like this, but you're not actually willing to talk about it. And now here you are making fallacious demands.

You're not new, James, so why should every discussion pretend like you are?