Okay, so he’s a bigot. Whatever.
Religion is still organized superstition.
But that doesn’t mean one has to be an asshole about it.
Well, maybe he likes being an asshole about it. Stop trying to stifle him.
Just kidding. Stifle his brains out, for all I care. FinnAgain remains determinedly ignorant and deserved to get called on his bullshit, be it by DT, Dio, me, or any of the board’s atheists.
Next thing you know, people will start saying that they hate assholes. The bigots!
What is it that he’s “determinedly ignorant” about again? Is it about Der Trihs being a dick, the existence of an all-powerful deity, or something else?
Ignorant of… what?
What’s even funnier is that not only am I an atheist, but no one has pointed out any ‘bullshit’ other than to obfuscate the issue and claim that bigotry isn’t bigotry if it’s directed at someone who is doing you absolutely no harm but who happens to hold a philosophy that you disagree with.
I don’t care. I just formed the opinion that you’re full of bullshit when you kept equating religion to race and sexuality or, more accurately, thought you’d proven something when you changed some words to try to equate a valid challenge to religion with an invalid challenge of race or sexuality.
As, so in fact you are ignorant and not only ignorant, but pig-headedly so.
Where to start, where to start… you’re ignorant of the fact that bigotry is still bigotry if it’s directed at the followers of a philosophy, like Liberalism or Christianity, or even a hobby like stamp collecting. The simple act of being able to choose membership in a group wouldn’t mean that bigotry is no longer bigotry.
You’re deliberately ignoring the fact that I also, specifically, used Liberalism as an analog, and it ‘proves’ the exact same thing.
You’d also be ignorant of the fact that I wasn’t using the analogies to prove anything, as the definition of the words I’ve been using are already quite clear, but to point out the fundamental disconnect behind being upset at ethnic/sexual/political bigotry and allowing religious bigotry.
I’d also point out that you’re ignorant of the fact that much of today’s research is converging on the concept that religious belief, itself, is pretty much neurological/genetic and most people predisposed to atheism won’t be swayed to religious arguments and most people predisposed to faith, even agnostic faith, simply have their minds wired that way. For agnostic theists it’s a matter of aesthetics, not epistemology. And, as such, hating people because of their inborn genetic structure which leads them to beliefs which harm nobody…
Well, I’m sure you can follow along from that point.
What - hatred directed at people on the basis of their religion isn’t bigotry?
The term normally encompasses that, I thought, though I’d be interested in hearing sources or arguments otherwise.
I don’t care if you want to call it bigotry; the label doesn’t invalidate his underlying argument. Besides, it’s a useless baa-sheep response.
Poster A: I distrust <group X> for the following reasons…
Poster B: That’s equivalent to saying you distrust <group Y>. You are a bigot!
It’s easy to pound your chest in righteous anger when group Y is homosexuals or some racial minority. Try substituting “the Nazi party” for group Y and see if that doesn’t make Poster B’s position all the more blatant as an appeal to emotion.
And if you don’t get it, kindly and immediately commence fucking your siblings, and the resultant children and the resultant grandchildren so whatever mangled part of your DNA that makes you such a gibbering moron is recursively crunched into a monstrously idiotic descendant whose stark existence can serve as cautionary example to all humanity.
Saying one hates and fears people who are (for example) Catholic because they are Catholic isn’t the same as saying one hates and fears people because they are Nazis. I certainly hope most people can see the difference. :eek:
I have no problems calling (for example) Chick Publications a bunch of anti-Catholic bigots, because they so obviously hate and fear Catholics.
The term “bigotry” has always to my knowledge encompassed, specifically, hatred of people of a different religion. If you think it doesn’t, then you are the one insisting on some special meaning.
No, the fact that it’s based on a fallacious logic literally makes it logically invalid. That his premises are wrong in any case makes it logically unsound.
Ah yes… like all people who are opposed to racism and bigotry. Mere sheep. You, on the other hand, have seen the path to hate, beautiful fallacious hate.
Nope. While it is equivalent to other bigotries, it’s bigoted all on its own.
It’s also stupid and illogical (or irrational and delusional, as the hate crazed manchild likes to say so often). If you distrust, say, agnostic theists, along side Taoists, along side snake handlers, along side Unitarians… because of the actions of Fred Phelps, you’re committing the fallacy of division after falsely ascribing a unifying quality to religion-as-a-whole via the fallacy of composition.
N.B. It doesn’t matter who you substitute for Phelps, the fallacy remains the same.
In other words, you’ve set up a system of fallacious fungibility so you can hold pejorative views of all religious people based on the actions of only a few.
But it’s okay, I’m sure your bigotry is much nicer than all those other forms of bigotry.
First, it’s not an appeal to emotion, but fact. You’d sound less hysterical if you undestood what the fallacy of appeal to emotion actually means. As it is you’re abusing logic in order to defend bigotry. Never a good sign.
Second, I’ve already addressed the obnoxious myth of “the hypocrisy of liberal tolerance”.
You are, in fact, echoing those neo-Nazis who pretend that tolerance means that you have to tolerate their bigotry and racism, or you’re not really tolerant. Or gay-bashing Christians who tell you that you’re not as tolerant as you claim unless you tolerate their right to hate gays.
You keep good company, eh?
Maybe you’d like to argue why 'them Libruls are full of shit with their highfalutin ‘tolerance’. Why, they don’t even accept that the Klan is just as acceptable as the PTA!"
Most importantly, one is not obliged to tolerate crime, hatred, bigotry, racism, child abuse, etc…
That you’d even put a philosophical belief which doesn’t effect you at all, with Nazism even on a superficial level? Well, it shows how deep your bigotry goes. It’s like asking “Well, you say I can’t hate people who collect stamps and that I’m a bigot because I hate stamp collectors. But what about child pornographers? You’re saying I have to tolerate child pornography now?”
Contort all you want to explain why you’re a bigot.
That doesn’t make it okay.
I’m not a bigot. I’ve simply been called one by an idiot, for what’s worth.
You just play one on TV?
You display a fundamental ignorance of basic English vocabulary, specifically your understanding of English vocabulary is below what we’d expect someone in grade six to possess. (Speaking of idiots…)
But you’re still too stubborn to admit that maybe, just maybe, treating all religious people as fungible and having a negative reaction to them regardless of their individual humanity miiiiight just be a tad irrational and prejudiced.
Tell us more about how it’s okay to “distrust” all religious people but if anybody calls you out for your bigotry, they also have to be okay with Nazism, or something.
Good point. I would like to see a theist’s take on NOMA that considered the issue rationally (i.e. without invoking goblins or alien robots or what have you). What is the stock God-cult denial of NOMA? Anyone know?
The argument that mankind will be, or would have been, better off without religion is an opinion that really has no legs to stand on. Since we like to be accurate here and unsubstantiated beliefs are just opinions, that should apply to believers and non believers as well.
DT is the fundamentalist of atheism in that his arguments have the same style and value as the arguments of fundie Christians. If you think “God said it so I believe it’s fact” is a stupid argument without any facts to support it then DTs “I said it so I believe it’s fact” without factual support is equally as stupid and empty.
The fact that you prefer one argument over the other doesn’t change that.
Any Christian who doesn’t desire to smite/stone to death/burn etc. homosexuals isn’t doing it right. The Bible is pretty clear on this. Millions of “Christians” think they can choose which part of God’s Word to obey and which part not to.
Sorry, you don’t get to make the rules, Yahweh does. I see these pretenders as having each developed their own, personal religion based on Christianity (usually very loosely so) but sorely lacking in either their knowledge or acceptance of true Christianity.
I think you misunderstood his point, which I took to be that just because you can ape the sentence structure of a statement, does mean the two statements are still equally valid if you are changing all of the particulars. Hence, the difference between calling religious beliefs stupid and delusional because they value ancient myths over physical evidence, and claiming homosexuals are leading to the destruction of western society because of… something.
A belief in Thor, ignoring the complete lack of evidence for his existence and the scientific explanations for how lightning and thunder are created in favour of Norse mythology, is irrational.
A belief in unicorns, ignoring the complete lack of evidence for their existence in favour of fairy tales, is irrational.
For the same reasons, a belief in the Christian God, ignoring the complete lack of evidence for his existence and the evidence against the existence of a benevolent, interventionist deity overseeing a world plagued by violence and natural disasters, is irrational.
You say this like it’s a bad thing. Isn’t it kind of a victory of sorts for the rest of the world if compassionate adults seeking spiritual meaning might look at the hardcore fundamentalist approach and say, "you know what? I can buy “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” but I’m not going to have any part of “Suffer not a witch to live.” I may still see their beliefs as irrational, but isn’t this progress?
Nope.
As long as you use the term “Christian”, It’ll always be up in the air as to what parts of the Bible you follow out of sincere belief, what parts you follow out of societal necessity, and what parts you might start following if society relaxes its watch.