Have you read the Bible? It calls for both, why is your interpretation the one true Christian view? — DingoJones

Have you seen some of the things he's been coming out with? I'd much rather a bit of the harsh rhetoric that's being complained about here than the outlandish nonsense that he's been producing.

"The North Pole isn't cold!", "The Queen has nothing to do with royalty!", "Spiders are essentially fish!". :roll:

You are either ignorant about the parts of the bible that contradict those passages, or are being dishonest. Either way, you didnt answer my question.
And yes, New Testament. Im aware of the selective reading practices of Christians. (like the new testament has a complete moral guide without the first part of the bible. Please)
You want to quote scripture? Quote the passage where Jesus calls for his enemies to be put to the sword. Do you know that one?

No, like an asshole I just jumped into the middle of your discussion. Not sure Ive ever interacted with Shamshir tbh, I lose track of the names. I had a list going of people not to bother talking to but like an asshole, I lost it.

Maybe it's because Christian morality is just right? — Shamshir

Christian morality is a misnomer. It ignores both differences in time and between sects. What did Jesus or Paul or the New Testament tell us about reproductive rights? Is what Jesus said about sexuality in agreement with what Paul or Augustine said? Does the "new testament" supersede the Law, which Jesus claimed he came to fulfill? As always, we pick and choose what we accept and reject, and this changes over time and place.

But I don't see them as more influental than common sense. — Shamshir

What does common sense tell you about Armageddon? What does common sense tell you about making Jerusalem the capital of Israel? Was is the influence of common sense that led the Trump administration to declare Jerusalem to be the capital?

What is the influence of common sense that has determined the availability of contraption to fight disease, poverty, and overpopulation?

What does common sense tell you about the rights of the fetus and the rights of a woman who becomes pregnant? If it were simply a matter of common sense then why is it that we have yet to find common ground to resolve the abortion debate?

Either way, that has more to do with politics than religion — Shamshir

It has to do with the power of the religious right to determine political law. The separation of church and state is not a clear dividing line. The boundary between private versus public choice and action is something that continues to change dependent on who is in power.

The movement could be non-religious, and accomplish the same results - because it's powerful and well organized. — Shamshir

It could be but in fact is not. Reproductive rights has become a religious issue. That has not always been the case. Reproductive rights has become a political issue, that too has not always been the case. The two have become intertwined in a way that will not soon become disentangled.

The problem, if there is one, isn't with religion, but that plenty of money and power hungry people flock to it. — Shamshir

Since religion is for many all pervasive and absolute, money and power can and have become its instrument. The fate of one's immortal soul is a motivating force that extends far beyond what money and power alone are capable of accomplishing.

The issues raised are in due to a pseudo or pretend religious mafia. — Shamshir

Whether or not it is a pseudo or pretend religious mafia depends on which side of the divide one stands on. While one may in principle separate church and state in practice today the separation is more ideological than real.

Once again, the question goes back to the "special" status and privileges that religion has managed to secure.

Quote the passage where Jesus calls for his enemies to be put to the sword. — DingoJones

Go ahead, enlighten me and quote it yourself.

No, like an asshole I just jumped into the middle of your discussion. Not sure Ive ever interacted with Shamshir tbh, I lose track of the names. I had a list going of people not to bother talking to but like an asshole, I lost it. — DingoJones

It's worth drawing attention to them, so here they are, in all their "glory":

...physics and chemistry and music are in essence religions. — Shamshir

Spiders and flies and ants are in essence fish.

Point of fact, the crusades and inquisition were akin to viking raids. Kill and pillage.
They weren't religious.
They weren't christian. — Shamshir

Point of fact, the North Pole and the South Pole aren't places. They aren't cold.

...the papacy's power crutch has nothing to do with religion. — Shamshir

The Queen's role as constitutional monarch has nothing to do with royalty.

Ok, but I hope by extending that courtesy you will in turn do me the courtesy of answering my question.

Do not think that I have come to bring peace on Earth: I came not to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's enemies shall be those in his own household.

Mathew 10.34

There are loads of immoral such passages, contrary to what most Christians think. I could do more, but a proper google search should be able to get a bunch of them for you.
So, the counter-argument will be some sort of bending over backwards interpretation of Jesus meaning “enlightenment” rather than “sword” or that the passage is about uniting people under god rather than dividing families and turning the against each other. Ridiculous, but fine, ill just grant that its open to interpretation.
What makes yours the correct one?

Ok, but surely you see how (and why, obviously) he is using a diluted definition from which his point follows? Wrong, but not non-sensical. What I mean is, his point follows from his admittedly faulty way of defining “Christian” but thats not the same as the contradictory or nonsense you are comparing it to.
You understand the point he is trying to make right? He is making a no true Scotsmen fallacy, but not spouting complete nonsense.

Ok, but surely you see how (and why, obviously) he is using a diluted definition from which his point follows? Wrong, but not non-sensical. What I mean is, his point follows from his admittedly faulty way of defining “Christian” but thats not the same as the contradictory or nonsense you are comparing it to.
You understand the point he is trying to make right? He is making a no true Scotsmen fallacy, but not spouting complete nonsense. — DingoJones

Yes, I get that. But it's still really lame. I could do exactly the same thing with those statements I made in response.

Agreed, pretty lame none the less. My point is, its ignorance (of logic and the new testament Shimshir, Im not making a generalisation about you being an ignorant person about everything) rather than delusion. Ignorance at least can be corrected, I have no remedy for delusion.

Agreed, pretty lame none the less. My point is, its ignorance (of logic and the new testament Shimshir, Im not making a generalisation about you being an ignorant person about everything) rather than delusion. Ignorance at least can be corrected, I have no remedy for delusion. — DingoJones

I'm not so sure how accurate it is to put it down to ignorance. That seems like letting him off the hook. I think that there's an element of deliberateness to it, like with my statements in response to his. He must surely know how it sounds, but it's like he's trying to be a clever clogs contrarian.

I think you are wrong on that, I dont think religious apologisers know how it sounds. I don’t even think some of them realise they are exercising apologetics. Its just that entrenched and familiar they are already well on the road before they have a chance to question the sense of it all.

The more honest declaration would be "We have faith in God" or "We do not have faith in God". Religion is, as far as I am concerned outside the realm of philosophy except for descriptive, or practical ethical, purposes, which is really more anthropology or sociology.

The problem comes when religious faith, whether positive or negative, is turned into fundamentalism, into something we can (incoherently) argue over.

It is all going downhill, even the anti-religious posters.

This is not supposed to be a debate about religion. See the OP.

It is a thread to discuss the disruptive and disrespectful behavior of atheists and anti-religious posters on this thread. — T Clark

All off-topic posts are being deleted.

I conclude that the behaviour of atheists and anti-religious posters is not anywhere near as bad as the denialism and apologetics of those in support of Christianity.

If you want respect, treat people with respect. And not just the people you agree with. — Terrapin Station

Hmm. :chin: I think you just summarised the OP, or maybe its solution, delightfully. Well said. :smile:

This is not supposed to be a debate about religion. [...] All off-topic posts are being deleted. — Baden

:up: Thank you. :smile:

If you want respect, treat people with respect. And not just the people you agree with. — Terrapin Station

Although people think of respect differently. The member above seems to think that respect is most importantly about all of the superficial nicey-nicey stuff. A smile here, a thumbs up there. I very much do not think of respect in that way.

You and I have agreed about the importance of being frank with people:

"Definitely some people you know are going to think you're an idiot sometimes. If they don't tell you that, they're not being honest with you".

Those are your words.

S - It isn't that I have no opinions 'against' anything, capitalism for instance, but that I think that except where people have been very heavily brainwashed - in which case we are probably wasting our time anyway - positive approaches are probably better at suggesting a shared humanity in which ideas can be shared. If Socrates had gone around Athens announcing himself to be an opponent of democracy, for instance, he would have lasted even less time than he did.

Although people think of respect differently. The member above seems to think that respect is most importantly about all of the superficial nicey-nicey stuff. A smile here, a thumbs up there. I very much do not think of respect in that way. — S

this is a false dilemma. You are presenting it as if the options are say surperficial nicey-nicey stuff or be insulting. You can avoid both and focus on the ideas. But the sentence X, here, doesn't hold because of Y.

And one can even be fussy and avoid words that imply the other person is wrong, like 'obviously'.

No, it's most definitely not a false dilemma simply to state that people think of respect differently, which they do, and to state my disagreement with the idea that superficial shows of affection, like smiling and giving a thumbs up, are what's most important about - or are the key defining features of - respect.

...obviously.

So do you agree or disagree with what I said, or do you think the options are either being nicey nicey or being insulting. Is it possible to be respecful without being nicey nicey and giving thumbs up and without being insulting?

cause I don't see anything in here...

If you want respect, treat people with respect. And not just the people you agree with.

about using emoticons. Maybe he said it elsewhere.

Maybe it wasn't a false dilemma, perhaps it was a strawman.

Although people think of respect differently. The member above seems to think that respect is most importantly about all of the superficial nicey-nicey stuff. A smile here, a thumbs up there. I very much do not think of respect in that way.

You and I have agreed about the importance of being frank with people:

"Definitely some people you know are going to think you're an idiot sometimes. If they don't tell you that, they're not being honest with you".

Those are your words. — S

Yes. Personally I care about honesty a lot more than respect.

So do you agree or disagree with what I said, or do you think the options are either being nicey nicey or being insulting. — Coben

Clearly I disagree with what you said insofar as I disagree with your false accusation that I had put forward a false dilemma.

Is it possible to be respecful without being nicey nicey and giving thumbs up and without being insulting? — Coben

This relates to my own thinking on respect, because asking me that question insults my intelligence.

cause I don't see anything in here...

"If you want respect, treat people with respect. And not just the people you agree with"

about using emoticons. Maybe he said it elsewhere.

Maybe it wasn't a false dilemma, perhaps it was a strawman. — Coben

You appear to have completely lost track of things. It obviously definitely wasn't a straw man, because obviously I obviously wasn't trying to represent the quoted text by Terrapin Station with the example I gave of a possible way of thinking about respect relating to smiling and giving a thumbs up, obviously, obviously, obviously. The reference I made to the member above was to the member above, not to the member I had quoted.

Hats off to the treating the question as an insult, allowing you a 'justification' not to answer, so that when you continue to present the false dilemma - insult or kiss people's ass - no one can say you're a hypocrite. Brilliant.

And also sad that you are often evasive this way. Under siege. Attacked even by questions and ideas that differ from yours. Attacked on all sides.

I got pulled back in by what seemed like a sense of humor about what actually is a really defensive stance in a world you feel attacked by.

I'll discontribute to what you experience as siege. I will not present ideas that differ from yours to you. I will not differ with your posts. I won't even read them. And I'll hold to that this time, even if you seem to have a brave period.