Those crazy Muslim bastards did it again

[Seth]

I'll tell you what I know - it's almost certain that God/Allah doesn't exist. What the fuck are you even doing at an atheist forum?

He's mind-fucking pseudo-intellectual Atheist religious zealots.

[Seth]

If they want to claim that they are part of the overall christian faith, then I think they should. Again, not to do so means that they, as self-styled christians, are complicit.

Except that anyone who terrorizes, harms or kills anyone else is not a Christian, by definition, because Christ never, ever commanded his followers to harm anyone.

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. - Luke 19:27

Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death. - Mark 7:5

Like I said, dispense with the quote-mining cherry picking that mendaciously and deliberately misunderstands the context and history of Christianity.

LOL.

1 These are the statutes and judgments, which ye shall observe to do in the land, which the Lord God of thy fathers giveth thee to possess it, all the days that ye live upon the earth. 2 Ye shall utterly destroy all the places, wherein the nations which ye shall possess served their gods, upon the high mountains, and upon the hills, and under every green tree: 3 And ye shall overthrow their altars, and break their pillars, and burn their groves with fire; and ye shall hew down the graven images of their gods, and destroy the names of them out of that place. - Deuteronomy 12:1-3 There's your context for Luke 19:27

Old Testament =/= New Testament.

[Seth]

Irrational belief. That's a BIG "what else".

You underrate the value of irrational belief and overrate the value of rigid rational belief in terms of human happiness.

In other words, what the fuck is so great about Atheism that anybody would even want to believe in it? Absofuckinglutely nothing, that's what. Most Atheists are some of the most evil, cruel, uncaring, selfish, self-righteous, miserable bastards I've ever had the displeasure to have met. On the other hand, the vast majority of Christians I know, and I know many, are the most kind, caring, loving, peaceable, humble and tolerant people I've ever met.

So do tell us, whatever the fuck you call yourself today, just exactly what is so great about Atheism and why anybody should do anything other than shake their heads in sorrow and pity at the empty nihilism of atheistic lives? You love to bitch and complain and demean and insult other people, but never once have I heard a cogent, compelling argument as to why your system of religious belief (and that's exactly what it is) is so superior to every other system of religious belief. Care to give it a go?

[Seth]

I suspect that if you did some really careful research on all the passages in the Bible, compared to all the passages in Islamic holy writings, you would see a somewhat higher number commanding the faithful to slay the infidel than in the bible.

Be as that as it may, Seth's pious vision of "true christians" being only those who follow "gentle Jesus meek and mild" is utterly irrelevant to this argument.

It's absolutely relevant when Atheist religious zealots improperly conflate the Old Testament with the New Testament and then claim that the Old Testament controls Christian behavior and belief. It doesn't, and any reasonably intelligent and open-minded person who has actually read the New Testament knows this and knows exactly why such conflations are pure intellectual dishonesty.

It may be the lofty aim of christianity (or at least some of its nicer vicars), but its practice over the centuries was that of a powerful institution, fighting to control it's own somewhat fractious in-group, and subjugate every out-group it came across. It had the estimable advantage, of course, of riding on the coat-tails of western imperialism. The classic "Guns, Germs and Steel" of Jared Diamond should perhaps be extended to Guns, Germs, Steel and the Missionary Position...

Again with the Wayback Machine fallacy. Oy! Give it a rest. We're discussing contemporary behaviors driven by contemporary religious beliefs. Your lame attempts at drawing a moral equivalency between the misdeeds of Christians a thousand years in the past and the misdeeds of Muslims yesterday is as intellectually dishonest as it gets and gives you the appearance of being an apologist for Muslim terrorism because you use the implicit "Christians did it so Muslims get to do it too" bullshit argument.

[Seth]

Yeah probably. I haven't read either.

Well, there it is, an admission that ignorance is bliss. Why should anyone give any credence to anything you have to say on the subject of religion when you trumpet your deliberate ignorance on the subject?

Yeah. Not to mention the irony explosion in Seth, the most old-testament biblically righteous poster getting around these days, advocating for Christianity as a gentle benign religion. Lol. That's certainly not the type of Christian Seth is.

There's no irony involved because I'm not a Christian and don't claim to be and pursuant to my religion I'm fully justified in advocating the use of force against those who act in a non-peaceable manner by initiating force or fraud. You mistake my educated mind with respect to Christianity and religion in general with affiliation with the Christian religion. That is an intellectual error you should probably address.

[Seth]

Is it to be an eye for an eye (Leviticus 24:19–21) or turning the other cheek (Matthew 5:38-39). Interpretation is unavoidable, even for those who are serious when they say that they accept every word of whatever holy book they subscribe to as the literal truth.

Old vs. New Testament fallacy. Mendaciously conflating the two is a favorite bit of intellectual dishonesty of Atheist religious zealots.

[Seth]

He wasn't talking about God existing. All that matters is that the followers of religions (i.e. the people who enable religions) believe that God exists. Without those God-believing followers, religion wouldn't exist. Hence why it's silly to say that religions "have nothing to do with God".

It's true. Religious zealots claim that their wooo is inspired & supported by "God". Well, if that's the case then they're not needed are they? Why doesn't their fuckin' God get off his arse & support them by inspiring the general population, so they wouldn't have to commit all sorts of barbaric acts on a daily basis?

Which God precisely are you referring to?


Hence we see that a religion & a philosophy, or prophets & philosophers/polemicists are no different from each other. Both are purely material, human artifacts.
Yet, there is one difference between prophets and philosophers:

Prophets are deluded nutters with a psychiatric condition, generally a personality disorder, demanding that they're the Voice of the Deity.

And your critically robust scientific evidence that all prophets are mentally ill is.....???

Philosophers are generally sane with an inquisitive mind and fond of debate who have no pretensions to divine inspiration (except modern French philosophers )

Most of the finest philosophers of the past were deeply religious in one way or another. Philosophy and religion are not mutually exclusive intellectual pursuits.

[Seth]

Wrong. That is all we need to know to understand their nature. What else is there?

Irrational belief. That's a BIG "what else".

Stalinism is based on a number of irrational beliefs. Yet does not require God.

Therefore you are wrong again.

Non-sequitur

Not at all. Rather, a cutting demolishing of your stupid argument.

[pErvinalia]

So why are you defending Islam by attacking Christians?

Use your brain. You are claiming there is something inherently wrong with Islam when compared to Christianity.

No, I'm stating that drawing a moral equivalency between contemporary Christianity and contemporary Islam by resorting to the Wayback Machine fallacy is unreasoning idiocy.

Given that isn't a logical fallacy, I put it to you you have no actual argument.

[pErvinalia]

I'll tell you what I know - it's almost certain that God/Allah doesn't exist. What the fuck are you even doing at an atheist forum?

He's mind-fucking pseudo-intellectual Atheist religious zealots.drunk

[Seth]

Religions and certain types of political movements have some important details in common, and yet they also important differences. One cannot understand the differences without analysing the supernatural belief systems inherent in religions. Analysing them does not mean accepting their delusional premises...

Drivel. Both are ideologies, religion simply uses the belief in the supernatural to justify itself.

Whereas some political movements, like socialism, have no justification whatsoever and don't even attempt such a justification. That's certainly the case of every socialist I've ever met, and every socialist on this board, who universally refuse to engage in a rational examination of the justifications for accepting socialism as a valid social, economic or political model.

At least the religious are humble enough to defer to something they believe is greater and wiser than themselves, whereas socialists are so arrogant that they believe that they are all-knowing and thus need not justify their beliefs.

[pErvinalia]

Yeah probably. I haven't read either.

Well, there it is, an admission that ignorance is bliss. Why should anyone give any credence to anything you have to say on the subject of religion when you trumpet your deliberate ignorance on the subject?

Yeah. Not to mention the irony explosion in Seth, the most old-testament biblically righteous poster getting around these days, advocating for Christianity as a gentle benign religion. Lol. That's certainly not the type of Christian Seth is.

There's no irony involved because I'm not a Christian and don't claim to be and pursuant to my religion I'm fully justified in advocating the use of force against those who act in a non-peaceable manner by initiating force or fraud. You mistake my educated mind with respect to Christianity and religion in general with affiliation with the Christian religion. That is an intellectual error you should probably address.

[pErvinalia]

Is it to be an eye for an eye (Leviticus 24:19–21) or turning the other cheek (Matthew 5:38-39). Interpretation is unavoidable, even for those who are serious when they say that they accept every word of whatever holy book they subscribe to as the literal truth.

Old vs. New Testament fallacy. Mendaciously conflating the two is a favorite bit of intellectual dishonesty of Atheist religious zealots.

Made-Up-Fallacy Fallacy.

[Seth]

So why are you defending Islam by attacking Christians?

Use your brain. You are claiming there is something inherently wrong with Islam when compared to Christianity.

No, I'm stating that drawing a moral equivalency between contemporary Christianity and contemporary Islam by resorting to the Wayback Machine fallacy is unreasoning idiocy.

Given that isn't a logical fallacy, I put it to you you have no actual argument.

You have no actual argument, that much is always true.

Like many other fallacies, the Wayback Machine fallacy is an "informal" logical fallacy that expresses elements of the fallacy of "appeal to common practice" in a way that clearly demonstrates the intellectual failure of reaching back hundreds or thousands of years for examples of human misbehavior as a supposed justification for disparaging contemporary human behavior which one does not esteem. That you refuse to engage your intellect long enough to understand this doesn't mean it's not a fallacy to do so. You're just evading the implications of having your arguments revealed as logical fallacies by, quite typically, attempting to derail the discussion into a semantic siding. But you're still wrong in your attempt to draw a moral equivalency between contemporary Christianity and contemporary Islam by referring to alleged misdeeds by alleged Christians a thousand years ago. That fact isn't going to change.

[pErvinalia]

So why are you defending Islam by attacking Christians?

Use your brain. You are claiming there is something inherently wrong with Islam when compared to Christianity.

No, I'm stating that drawing a moral equivalency between contemporary Christianity and contemporary Islam by resorting to the Wayback Machine fallacy is unreasoning idiocy.

Given that isn't a logical fallacy, I put it to you you have no actual argument.

You have no actual argument, that much is always true.

Like many other fallacies, the Wayback Machine fallacy is an "informal" logical fallacy that expresses elements of the fallacy of "appeal to common practice"

It's nothing like the appeal to common practice fallacy. No wonder you have to make up fallacies to attempt to get your ridiculous points across.