Religious Nonsense
- Thread starter StrangerInAStrangeLand
- Start date
- Status
You should really learn the meaning of the word "fail".
Who said I didn't respect them?
duplicate
Who are you talking to? It had better damned well not be me.
Lol
You might have to take Iceaura off ignore, just to avoid taking slight from things not directed to you.
Depends on what you mean by respect. Thing is, there are a number of directions I can go, because your post allows them; I can pick one and go with it, and possibly insult you twice in doing so, once for having done so and again according to something said within that framework.
For instance:
• "I don't know about you, but I respect people who demonstrate that they deserve respect, not given because of a label."
― Yeah, that's kind of what I'm doing.
― Your appeal to judgment seems problematic insofar as there is too much weight and focus on empowerment and satisfaction.
― What? I wouldn't leave them bleeding to death in the street.
― &c.
― Your appeal to judgment seems problematic insofar as there is too much weight and focus on empowerment and satisfaction.
― What? I wouldn't leave them bleeding to death in the street.
― &c.
As to the first, part of the problem is, as I noted a while ago, that it ought to be harder to lose certain arguments to certain people. The reason people botched is because of their own prejudice to the point of bigotry. Frankly, it's years later, and the scam is clear: A bunch of ignorant people wanting to be just as shitty as they think a bunch of other ignorant people are. So, yeah, if I'm setting the criteria for deserving respect, as such, there comes a point at which I accept these people really are as ignorant and vicious as they present themselves, and no, that doesn't pile up points in the "deserve respect" column.
The second reflects the problem with the first. As one atheistic advocate said, he doesn't care what the evidence says, and will only accept evidence he decides he can believe in. This focus on being the arbiter of discourse is what makes the atheistic cult at Sciforums so unethical and belligerent. They're just jealous. Similarly, these people who tend to argue without regard to function can simply complain that any counterpoint is just as arbitrary. Nonetheless, demonstrating judgment and feeling the petty psychological reward seems to be the purpose of this conduct.
The third merely reminds that they get certain respect simply for existing. (We call it "human rights", and "human decency", which some critics argue are arbitrary notions, but, hey, no atheist need worry about appealing to that subjectivity because, hey, at least that higher cause isn't "theistic".)
No, it's not you. You're suffering a symptom of "ignore"-ance.
(Laugh. The response was to someone you're ignoring.)
• • •
You really should learn to not be disingenuous.
I recognize it feels clever, or some such, to go out of your way to not answer the question in any functional manner, thus showing someone the disrespect you feel, but that's the thing, you didn't answer the question.
You were asked a yes or no question, and chose a different answer. You have yet to affirm that you respect these people. And here's the thing about being disingenuous: I did ask, "Or, did you mean something else?" but you couldn't be bothered to answer that, or even acknowledge it.
Like I said, it should be harder to lose an argument with Musika about this stuff. But you're so caught up in demonstrating your empowerment to judge and disrespect that you can't manage to not make things worse. Your bigotry is your higher cause.
On the upside, at least it's not theistic. Well, unless it is.
You are not the one who decides whether or not my answers are functional. I am.
The question (though not directed at me directly) was whether I knew any abrahamics that I like. The implication of my answer, which should be clear to anybody, is that I do like some of the people I know.
How, um ... democratic.
Fair point, but that only begs a question why insert yourself.
And that still evades the question, unless of course it answers it, and if we follow that rhetoric, we're right back to poor you. Word games are as word games will, but, whatever, I suppose it's easier than knowing anything about what you criticize.
At least you're willing to say so explicitly. Many people who need that condition in effect are unwilling to actually declare it.
Word games in service of supremacism are still supremacism. I don't really give a damn about the chicken and egg of who started it when one's primary purpose is to keep it going.
There was a thread somewhere recently about "winning" arguments online. I suggested that we all set our own winning conditions. In fact, I do consider it a win if somebody "gets" what I'm trying to say. One benchmark for that is "likes", though I do value a "like" from some people more than others.
Don't know what you're on about. Was "supremacism" on your Word-of-the-Day calendar?
You are noramlly gramaticle and puntuatically correct. What happened there?
Edit: It took more effort to misspell that than to type it correctly. English, (or whatever your native tongue is, just so I don't offend the Welsh or the Ojibwe.)
There is something that most people realize, and thatjust might be that religious teaching may not be "The Truth", but might be a learning tool for children.
I think that's why I had so many honest visits with priests both Episcopal and Catholic. As I've mentioned before. most of these were over the chessboard.
Never play a Dutch Jesuit, and I really mean that. Unless you have a ranking better than 1600 or so..
But I digress. Curry on, gentlemen, and don't hold the ghosts back!
Last edited:
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
My wife is "abrahamic" (Catholic). She believes in god, though does not practice religion.
We've been married 50 years. You know many people who have been married to the same person for half a century?
p.s. I am a Dutchman and as pure Arian as you can get, my wife is Native American and her ancestors lived in California for thousands of years. We fill each other's gaps. It works.
I know plenty non-abrahamics whom I dislike. They tend to be very intelligent and for some that brings it's own vanity.
Contrary to your misplaced prejudice against me personally, I am a most agreeable person.
I am however implacably opposed to exclusive and prejudicial religions. They are dangerous.
Trust me in this.
Last edited:
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
IMO, that's the problem. To be taught prejudice and intolerance from the git go is dangerous. It becomes twice as difficult to undo the damage.
https://erlc.com/resource-library/articles/scripture-and-the-long-shadow-of-american-slavery
Because it is still part of scripture. IMO, that is unforgivable. Amend the scripture to make it clear slavery and racial and religious prejudice is inhumane under any circumstance.
My stance on this is unshakable.
Last edited:
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Seems you would have left me bleeding in the streets.
Have you ever experienced war at all, other than perhaps rationing of food?
Such an inconvenience. And then having to listen to people who did and who have earned the right to assign blame to those responsible for war. You find that tedious?
Last edited:
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
I do and I'm sure I have played a Dutch Jesuit on occasion....don't recall if I won...
My dad was a Class A cat.1 player
Last edited:
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
!!!!!!!!!!!!
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Isn't that covered under the Separation Clause?
Which IMO is both a privilege granted and a restriction imposed on the practice of religion.
As Notary you can practice but you cannot be prejudicial.
IOW, a religious notary can practice notary services, but cannot refuse to notarize a marriage license between say, homosexuals.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Most of the word-games in this thread have been played by theists.
Moreover they have been supremacist in so far as declaring that "God IS" and and is supreme.
By implication a believer has the supreme answer available to him only.
His belief is unshakable and reigns supreme. I call that BS. Religious nonsense.
- Status