I never start the debate, or vendetta. It is religion which declares vendetta on all other beliefs or non-beliefs.
So "religion" declared "vendetta" on your atheistic response to religion before either you or your atheistic response to religion existed?
I remember one time, when we were kids, my brother was so mad at my mother that instead of asking why I wasn't being punished, he demanded, "Why aren't you getting
him in trouble?" And, sure, he was nine and pissed off, but even at eight years old I could recognize he was using a different form of "getting him in trouble", that he was so angry he couldn't speak straight.
According to religion, apostates are the "enemy", not the other way around.
Thing is, there are multiple answers; the difference depends on what you mean.
• There is a question of which religions, such that any one that fails to declare apostates the enemy is sufficient to refute your assertion. I would be interested to learn the formal variations of Wiccan denunciation of apostasy; in over twenty-five years of familiarity with post-Gardenerian witchcraft, I've never encountered it. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but, hey, it's a place to start.
• There is a question of how you treat words pertaining to groups and individuals, and classifications thereof. In this context, an appeal to supporting history would re-establish that your vendetta of judgment is in fact an exercise in grotesque prejudice. A subtle point is that the religion of the evangelist James is not the religion of the Apostle Paul; nor is the religion of these Biblical authors the religion of Tertullian, or Irenaeus of Lyon. These years down the line, certainly, we have a classification that denotes their commonality, but James and Paul couldn't quite agree, and Tertullian is worried about other things. More broadly and obviously, the religion of Paul and James and Tertullian and Irenaeus is not the religion of Abu Bakr, which in turn is not the religion of Rabia of Basra (Rābi'a al-'Adawiyya al-Qaysiyya). It's also true that, these years later, we do have a classification that denotes their commonality. Shall we throw in the religions of Smith, Farrakhan, and then that other Smith? Seriously, go around asking modern evangelical Christians to justify Yakub; they won't know what you're on about. And while it is possible you might tally that up as yet another negative experience and oppressive, offensive failure of religion, would you even know that not only can Christians not justify Yakub, they are, generally speaking, not even supposed to know what the question means? Be careful which Christians you ask, though; in some quarters it is possible to find a convert who knows the answer and nine hundred ninety nine of five would call you out for asking. I am guessing, however, on that occasion he would be wrong because even if you actually went and did it, you would have no idea what you were on about, and therefore no clue how you just offended him. Try this: Sometimes different differences are differently important.
• There is a path by which we can simply shrug, agree with you, and then point to your own behavior as corroboration for your point. This path will intersect, probably repeatedly, with the prior point about groups, individuals, and classifications.
History is witness to theist persecution of "free thought".
And history is witness to commercial persecution of free thought. And?
Read the OT to see who started this millenia long vendetta. Read up on Hypathia, to see who took first action in vendetta against Science. Read the Q'uran to see who continues the vendetta against all apostates (people who do not believe in Islam)
When you get around to studying history, you will find that the cycle started before the Jebusites held a rock.
Do I have the right to defend myself against the physical violence done to me in the name of religious vendetta?
Sure, but that would seem to be a separate issue.
How dare you accuse me of waging a vendetta against religion, I am a "pacifist" in the best sense of the term. You are the one doing mental violence now........!!!!
You're the one who seeks to
judge as severely wanting↑ according to tenets you have assigned others. When those factors happen to be true, they are true; when they are not, they are not. The difference? Either you can't grasp it, or choose to discard it, but in either case you shouldn't be making that anyone else's problem.
And what does that have to do with me?
Well, generally speaking, it didn't, until you decided to get into the discussion.
And what do someone else's words have to do with me?
They are relevant to what you said; they are part of what you chose to discuss.
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.
There is actually a lot there: Yes, perspectivess on morals are subjective to individuals. Yes, we develop morals by common consent. In the case of religious community moral assertions, we can argue the lack of rational foundation all we want, but the counterpoint, the rational alternative, would ostensibly have a rational justification. Inquiring as to the rational justification of the rational alternative is functional. Demanding the theist write the rational justification of the rational alternative, just for the sake of having "countered with the same question from an atheist perspective", is nothing more than demanding the theist write the atheist's argument for the sake of being disruptive.
Still, though, the precision and stability of convention is a pretty big discussion on a societal scale, especially in eventually accounting for the whole of the human endeavor.
I make an observation, you come along and declare my posts useless and simplistic.
You could always try not being so clumsy about your simplifications. Your pretense of observation is disruptive, and seemingly willfully so. Like asking what someone else's words have to do with you when it's their words you're demanding a rational justification of.
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.
Is there something about a given religious historical record you would actually like to discuss, or are you just going to run around bawling about theists?
Here, let's skip back to the beginning, for a moment, and I'll try to give you an example.
†
There is a story I sometimes tell about the Revised Standard Version of the Bible; I skipped over it,
this time↑, and the discussion went along, doing its own thing, but part of the RSV story is actually germane to the topic post; more fool me for pulling the story for the sake of a shorter post. The short form:
• The RSV was intended to refine Biblical historicity, but triggered conflict among the faithful when more conservative factions disdained the literary and lexical result. The problem was that the RSV, compared to KJV, attended the Old Testament in more originalist terms. The difference might seem obscure, but were the Jews of the seventh century BCE mere bit players in the real drama that started with the Christian evangelism? Of course they weren't. Treating the Hebrew Scriptures as part of the Hebrew experience diminished a context in which the Old Testament sets up for the New, by which the Hebrew experience was the Hebrew experience instead of some unfortunately necessary precursor for Christ. The experts went back to the table and issued the New Revised Standard Version, but the NRSV only exacerbated the conservative Christian complaint.
It might sound silly on the surface, but it makes a difference. And outside that particular dispute about Christianizing the Hebrew context, the differences 'twixt versions discussed in the early posts of this thread can be viewed similarly. And here is the really obscure part: Within the Christian and post-Christian experience, it is only in the last century or so that society has begun challenging the pretense of Genesis 1.28 licensing environmental irresponsibility and animal cruelty. The difference 'twixt "every living creature" and "whole creation" is, in Mk. 16, its own difference per the superficial question in the topic post. The KJV phrasing, though, "every living creature", reinforces the idea that God decreed human—and thus
Christian—planetary dominion.
Sometimes the little differences tell big stories.
†
Meanwhile—
Is that the point you were making? How is that useful to the discussion?
—you're just not credible. I simply don't believe you're incapable of following the discussion.
Really, the alternative is asking how addressing and clearing up fallacy fails your standard of utility, and, come on, that's just ridiculous.