Total Posts:53|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Imagine there's no heaven

ethang5
Posts: 4,088
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2014 9:16:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/16/2014 8:42:23 AM, bulproof wrote:
Try it theists.
https://www.youtube.com...

How I love that John Lennon song!

Oh, not because of any musical virtue it might have, but because it is a classic case of reality slapping the logic challenged atheist in the face.

If we had the world John Lennon sings about in the song, he still would have been shot by that mental retard! All his "imagines" would not bring about the world his songs assumes would exist if there were no religion (nothing to kill or die for). Unless you agree that a world without Jodie Foster would be better.

Hey John, your song had one stanza missing

Imagine there's no mental illness
It's easy if you try....
No retards or idiots, a total lack of numbskulls
Imagine all the people, thinking logicallyyyyyyyy

Yooouuuu...you might say I'm a dreamer,
but I'm not he only one,
I hope some day you'll join us
and the world will live as one.

Complete stupidity.

But it sure sounds good tho....
debateuser
Posts: 1,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2014 9:43:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/18/2014 9:16:43 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 8/16/2014 8:42:23 AM, bulproof wrote:
Try it theists.
https://www.youtube.com...

How I love that John Lennon song!

Oh, not because of any musical virtue it might have, but because it is a classic case of reality slapping the logic challenged atheist in the face.

If we had the world John Lennon sings about in the song, he still would have been shot by that mental retard! All his "imagines" would not bring about the world his songs assumes would exist if there were no religion (nothing to kill or die for). Unless you agree that a world without Jodie Foster would be better.

Hey John, your song had one stanza missing

Imagine there's no mental illness
It's easy if you try....
No retards or idiots, a total lack of numbskulls
Imagine all the people, thinking logicallyyyyyyyy

Yooouuuu...you might say I'm a dreamer,
but I'm not he only one,
I hope some day you'll join us
and the world will live as one.

Complete stupidity.

But it sure sounds good tho....

Atheists have higher IQ as has been shown in different studies.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
Scientific Errors In Religion : Atheists are right that religion is a myth

Read this topic on below link:

http://www.debate.org...
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2014 10:11:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Ah... The beautiful dream of Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot, Fidel Castro, Che Guevara, Kim Il-sung. im Sold!

1- Atheist can only rationally perceive morality as personal and relative to humans.
2- If all morality is personal and relative to humans, then objectively, there is no wrong action.
3- If there is no objectively wrong action, then banning atheism is not objectively wrong.
ethang5
Posts: 4,088
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2014 10:46:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/18/2014 9:43:30 AM, debateuser wrote:
At 8/18/2014 9:16:43 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 8/16/2014 8:42:23 AM, bulproof wrote:
Try it theists.
https://www.youtube.com...

How I love that John Lennon song!

Oh, not because of any musical virtue it might have, but because it is a classic case of reality slapping the logic challenged atheist in the face.

If we had the world John Lennon sings about in the song, he still would have been shot by that mental retard! All his "imagines" would not bring about the world his songs assumes would exist if there were no religion (nothing to kill or die for). Unless you agree that a world without Jodie Foster would be better.

Hey John, your song had one stanza missing

Imagine there's no mental illness
It's easy if you try....
No retards or idiots, a total lack of numbskulls
Imagine all the people, thinking logicallyyyyyyyy

Yooouuuu...you might say I'm a dreamer,
but I'm not he only one,
I hope some day you'll join us
and the world will live as one.

Complete stupidity.

But it sure sounds good tho....

Atheists have higher IQ as has been shown in different studies.

I'm willing that you didn't take part in any of those studies.
ethang5
Posts: 4,088
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2014 10:53:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/18/2014 10:11:28 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Ah... The beautiful dream of Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot, Fidel Castro, Che Guevara, Kim Il-sung. im Sold!



1- Atheist can only rationally perceive morality as personal and relative to humans.

Correct. But I've always wondered why. I mean, they don't have to believe it, simply comprehend it. But try as I might, I've never gotten one light bulb above a single atheists head to light up.

2- If all morality is personal and relative to humans, then objectively, there is no wrong action.

True, but they will irrationally insist that there are "wrong" actions. Wrong being defined as, "Whatever I don't like."

3- If there is no objectively wrong action, then banning atheism is not objectively wrong.

Substitute "Christianity" for "atheism" in that sentence and though it will have the exact same logic, atheists will suddenly agree that it is perfectly logical.
The_Immortal_Emris
Posts: 474
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2014 11:00:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/18/2014 10:11:28 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Ah... The beautiful dream of Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot, Fidel Castro, Che Guevara, Kim Il-sung. im Sold!



1- Atheist can only rationally perceive morality as personal and relative to humans.

Which allows us to view each other as actual people, with actual value, rather than dehumanize those we disagree with religiously. Unlike Christians like you, who dehumanize non-theists so it's easier for you to shield yourself in ignorance and hate us.

2- If all morality is personal and relative to humans, then objectively, there is no wrong action.

You're clearly making illogical leaps to help further dehumanize non-theists. Do we threaten your little echo chamber so badly?

If all morality is personal and relative to humans, then human rights and liberties are foremost in the minds of atheists and non-theists. Meaning we treat our fellow man as equals. Christians like you, however, treat those who do not fit into your specific, acceptable categories, as lesser than you, and you justify it by creating delusions of graduate based on the withheld love of your imaginary god.

3- If there is no objectively wrong action, then banning atheism is not objectively wrong.

Again, because you are desperate to dehumanize all non-theists, you conclude that we perceive morality to be objective. I could recommend some reading for you to help dispel your ignorance, if I believed you were open minded enough to read them.

God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything
by Christopher Hitchens

Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth
by Reza Aslan

The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values
by Sam Harris

On Humanism
by Richard Norman
debateuser
Posts: 1,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2014 11:21:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/18/2014 10:46:10 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 8/18/2014 9:43:30 AM, debateuser wrote:
At 8/18/2014 9:16:43 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 8/16/2014 8:42:23 AM, bulproof wrote:
Try it theists.
https://www.youtube.com...

How I love that John Lennon song!

Oh, not because of any musical virtue it might have, but because it is a classic case of reality slapping the logic challenged atheist in the face.

If we had the world John Lennon sings about in the song, he still would have been shot by that mental retard! All his "imagines" would not bring about the world his songs assumes would exist if there were no religion (nothing to kill or die for). Unless you agree that a world without Jodie Foster would be better.

Hey John, your song had one stanza missing

Imagine there's no mental illness
It's easy if you try....
No retards or idiots, a total lack of numbskulls
Imagine all the people, thinking logicallyyyyyyyy

Yooouuuu...you might say I'm a dreamer,
but I'm not he only one,
I hope some day you'll join us
and the world will live as one.

Complete stupidity.

But it sure sounds good tho....

Atheists have higher IQ as has been shown in different studies.

I'm willing that you didn't take part in any of those studies.

But u took part in the study as a theist. Lol
Scientific Errors In Religion : Atheists are right that religion is a myth

Read this topic on below link:

http://www.debate.org...
The_Immortal_Emris
Posts: 474
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2014 11:27:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/18/2014 10:53:27 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 8/18/2014 10:11:28 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Ah... The beautiful dream of Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot, Fidel Castro, Che Guevara, Kim Il-sung. im Sold!



1- Atheist can only rationally perceive morality as personal and relative to humans.

Correct. But I've always wondered why.

Actually, this is an incredibly ignorant statement, and displays your bigotry.

I mean, they don't have to believe it, simply comprehend it.
Comprehend what?

But try as I might, I've never gotten one light bulb above a single atheists head to light up.

Not a student of the apostrophe, I see. Likely you aren't very good at communicating.

What are you trying to "light up", in an atheists head? You haven't even made it clear what you're attempting to enlighten them to. Again, dehumanization and ignorance are your bastions.

2- If all morality is personal and relative to humans, then objectively, there is no wrong action.
True, but they will irrationally insist that there are "wrong" actions. Wrong being defined as, "Whatever I don't like."

Again, you dehumanize and claim you understand non-theists, but all you understand is the inhuman strawman you have built to burn.

Your bigotry is obvious, and your ignorance of humanism even more so.

3- If there is no objectively wrong action, then banning atheism is not objectively wrong.

Substitute "Christianity" for "atheism" in that sentence and though it will have the exact same logic, atheists will suddenly agree that it is perfectly logical.

No secular humanist wants to ban any religious practice. We don't like your religion, because it create people who are so blinded by their dogma, that they dehumanize non-theists.

Evidence of that reality is plane to see in your own posts.

You're angry that non-theists assign stereotypical behavior to you, but you're more than willing to live up the the stereotype and do the same to them.

If you can't even see how ironic and toxic your own words are, how do you expect to enlighten anyone.

You're just an angry, blind child stumbling in the dark, cursing the imagined enemy you have created for yourself.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2014 12:19:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/18/2014 11:00:21 AM, The_Immortal_Emris wrote:
At 8/18/2014 10:11:28 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Ah... The beautiful dream of Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot, Fidel Castro, Che Guevara, Kim Il-sung. im Sold!



1- Atheist can only rationally perceive morality as personal and relative to humans.

Which allows us to view each other as actual people, with actual value, rather than dehumanize those we disagree with religiously. Unlike Christians like you, who dehumanize non-theists so it's easier for you to shield yourself in ignorance and hate us.

OK, so this is like, one of the most vague statements I've seen.

Are there wrong ways to perseve people? I get rational and irrational ways, but what makes viewpoints morally superior?

What are those values, what are they based on, and what enforces them?

Are humans equal for us to pin point a group that shares a characteristic? What do you mean by "dehumanize"?

Ignorance isn't a bad thing persay, but I have no idea where the claim that I seek ignorance came from. Neither do I hate people based on subjective thoughts and beliefs.

2- If all morality is personal and relative to humans, then objectively, there is no wrong action.

You're clearly making illogical leaps to help further dehumanize non-theists. Do we threaten your little echo chamber so badly?

If all morality is personal and relative to humans, then human rights and liberties are foremost in the minds of atheists and non-theists. Meaning we treat our fellow man as equals. Christians like you, however, treat those who do not fit into your specific, acceptable categories, as lesser than you, and you justify it by creating delusions of graduate based on the withheld love of your imaginary god.

I am a theist who do not believe in subjective morality. Naturally, this argument, which is based on the assumption of subjective morality, does not reflect my opinion. Perhaps my position can be described as a devil's advocate.

I shall not confirm or deny owning an echo chamber. However, I will state that my place of residence is not placed within the boundaries of such structure, hypothetical it is or not.

As for the second part... Whoa Whoa Whoa. Hold your horses partna.
"human rights and liberties"? Prove to us that "human rights and liberties" should be applied everywhere regardless of the opinion of majority and/or those who are in power. (Meaning that it is ought to be applied from the beginning of history till now).
Where does this principle come from and who decides it as some universal principle?

In fact, prove to me that it is not an illogical principle. Since you are a materialist, then it would be economically rational if the benefit outweighs the cost. Point to me an objective (Avoiding bringing your opinion or "what I feel like" into this, as you already agreed to premise #1 (No, your opinion or "what you feel like" is not superior to other people. Such big ego...)) materialistic (non-spiritual) value humanitarian effort and sacrifice provides for it to be rational.

I mean the rich aren't treated the same as the poor, the healthy isn't treated the same as the sick, the intelligent isn't treated the same as the ignorant. What material constant compels you to treat humans equally?

3- If there is no objectively wrong action, then banning atheism is not objectively wrong.

Again, because you are desperate to dehumanize all non-theists, you conclude that we perceive morality to be objective. I could recommend some reading for you to help dispel your ignorance, if I believed you were open minded enough to read them.

God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything
by Christopher Hitchens

Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth
by Reza Aslan

The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values
by Sam Harris

On Humanism
by Richard Norman

It is not my opinion or wish to dehumanize atheists, but I wonder why you think it is wrong or a bad thing. Aren't the majority religious?
The word "ignorance" seems to be in synonym with "opposing opinion", interesting.

Already read two (Hitchen's and Sam's). Might give the other books a read though.
ethang5
Posts: 4,088
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2014 12:33:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/18/2014 11:27:11 AM, The_Immortal_Emris wrote:
At 8/18/2014 10:53:27 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 8/18/2014 10:11:28 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Ah... The beautiful dream of Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot, Fidel Castro, Che Guevara, Kim Il-sung. im Sold!

1- Atheist can only rationally perceive morality as personal and relative to humans.

Correct. But I've always wondered why.

Actually, this is an incredibly ignorant statement, and displays your bigotry.

Yes. From your last post I can see that you think every Christian move is about you. We all believe morality is objective so as to abuse you. lol. You agreed that Atheist can only rationally perceive morality as personal and relative to humans, you even suggested a reason why that is. But when I observe the same thing you've validated, you say my statement is incredibly ignorant and displays my bigotry. You are going to be a splendid teaching tool.

I mean, they don't have to believe it, simply comprehend it.

Comprehend what?

I swear Gentle Reader, I did not set this up. He really wrote that response on his own.

But try as I might, I've never gotten one light bulb above a single atheists head to light up.

Not a student of the apostrophe, I see. Likely you aren't very good at communicating.

lol. I guess not.

What are you trying to "light up", in an atheists head? You haven't even made it clear what you're attempting to enlighten them to. Again, dehumanization and ignorance are your bastions.

Yes! That is what we're all trying to do to you. Dehumanize you.

2- If all morality is personal and relative to humans, then objectively, there is no wrong action.
True, but they will irrationally insist that there are "wrong" actions. Wrong being defined as, "Whatever I don't like."

Again, you dehumanize and claim you understand non-theists, but all you understand is the inhuman straw man you have built to burn.

Yet you cannot say what the straw man is, or why it's a straw man. I you have not touched one point made in DragonFang's post. Only accused him of trying to somehow oppress you.

Your bigotry is obvious, and your ignorance of humanism even more so.

I am convinced that you see Christians as bigoted. Though I have never trolled an atheist site insulting both atheist and the things they hold dear. But we know that you think reality and what you believe are the same thing.

3- If there is no objectively wrong action, then banning atheism is not objectively wrong.

Substitute "Christianity" for "atheism" in that sentence and though it will have the exact same logic, atheists will suddenly agree that it is perfectly logical.

No secular humanist wants to ban any religious practice. We don't like your religion, because it create people who are so blinded by their dogma, that they dehumanize non-theists.

...because it creates people....

That is why the intelligent aren't grammar Nazis. Glass houses, stones.

All you're doing here is repeating claims you probably heard from some guru of yours. Can you use logic to show any dehumanization?

Evidence of that reality is plane to see in your own posts.

I know for you, reality resides between your ears, but the rest of us can't see what's happening there. It isn't as "clear" to us. Do something more than telling us your beliefs.

You're angry that non-theists assign stereotypical behavior to you, but you're more than willing to live up the the stereotype and do the same to them.

Oh, I'm angry, but it is the atheists who always seek me out to insult Jesus and then go into spittle-filled rants. I'm so glad you came here to tell me that I'm angry. I wouldn't have known it if you hadn't.

If you can't even see how ironic and toxic your own words are, how do you expect to enlighten anyone.

lol. Enlighten? What makes you think enlightening anyone is my goal? The truth is never toxic. Reality is not defined as "what you find pleasant".

Secular humanism is nothing but self worship. Address the points in the post or move on. I do not care for how wonderful you think you and humanism are. Do you have anything of intellectual value to post?

You're just an angry, blind child stumbling in the dark, cursing the imagined enemy you have created for yourself.

Yes. It is my stumbling in the dark that brought you here. You're imaginary.

And FYI, I do not curse, I never us vulgarity. I don't have to, I have logic.
matt.mcguire88
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2014 12:35:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/18/2014 11:21:01 AM, debateuser wrote:
At 8/18/2014 10:46:10 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 8/18/2014 9:43:30 AM, debateuser wrote:
At 8/18/2014 9:16:43 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 8/16/2014 8:42:23 AM, bulproof wrote:
Try it theists.
https://www.youtube.com...

How I love that John Lennon song!

Oh, not because of any musical virtue it might have, but because it is a classic case of reality slapping the logic challenged atheist in the face.

If we had the world John Lennon sings about in the song, he still would have been shot by that mental retard! All his "imagines" would not bring about the world his songs assumes would exist if there were no religion (nothing to kill or die for). Unless you agree that a world without Jodie Foster would be better.

Hey John, your song had one stanza missing

Imagine there's no mental illness
It's easy if you try....
No retards or idiots, a total lack of numbskulls
Imagine all the people, thinking logicallyyyyyyyy

Yooouuuu...you might say I'm a dreamer,
but I'm not he only one,
I hope some day you'll join us
and the world will live as one.

Complete stupidity.

But it sure sounds good tho....

Atheists have higher IQ as has been shown in different studies.

I'm willing that you didn't take part in any of those studies.

But u took part in the study as a theist. Lol

Lol
ethang5
Posts: 4,088
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2014 12:39:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/18/2014 12:19:01 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 8/18/2014 11:00:21 AM, The_Immortal_Emris wrote:
At 8/18/2014 10:11:28 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Ah... The beautiful dream of Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot, Fidel Castro, Che Guevara, Kim Il-sung. im Sold!



1- Atheist can only rationally perceive morality as personal and relative to humans.

Which allows us to view each other as actual people, with actual value, rather than dehumanize those we disagree with religiously. Unlike Christians like you, who dehumanize non-theists so it's easier for you to shield yourself in ignorance and hate us.

OK, so this is like, one of the most vague statements I've seen.

Are there wrong ways to perseve people? I get rational and irrational ways, but what makes viewpoints morally superior?

What are those values, what are they based on, and what enforces them?

Are humans equal for us to pin point a group that shares a characteristic? What do you mean by "dehumanize"?


Ignorance isn't a bad thing persay, but I have no idea where the claim that I seek ignorance came from. Neither do I hate people based on subjective thoughts and beliefs.

2- If all morality is personal and relative to humans, then objectively, there is no wrong action.

You're clearly making illogical leaps to help further dehumanize non-theists. Do we threaten your little echo chamber so badly?

If all morality is personal and relative to humans, then human rights and liberties are foremost in the minds of atheists and non-theists. Meaning we treat our fellow man as equals. Christians like you, however, treat those who do not fit into your specific, acceptable categories, as lesser than you, and you justify it by creating delusions of graduate based on the withheld love of your imaginary god.

I am a theist who do not believe in subjective morality. Naturally, this argument, which is based on the assumption of subjective morality, does not reflect my opinion. Perhaps my position can be described as a devil's advocate.

I shall not confirm or deny owning an echo chamber. However, I will state that my place of residence is not placed within the boundaries of such structure, hypothetical it is or not.

As for the second part... Whoa Whoa Whoa. Hold your horses partna.
"human rights and liberties"? Prove to us that "human rights and liberties" should be applied everywhere regardless of the opinion of majority and/or those who are in power. (Meaning that it is ought to be applied from the beginning of history till now).
Where does this principle come from and who decides it as some universal principle?

In fact, prove to me that it is not an illogical principle. Since you are a materialist, then it would be economically rational if the benefit outweighs the cost. Point to me an objective (Avoiding bringing your opinion or "what I feel like" into this, as you already agreed to premise #1 (No, your opinion or "what you feel like" is not superior to other people. Such big ego...)) materialistic (non-spiritual) value humanitarian effort and sacrifice provides for it to be rational.

I mean the rich aren't treated the same as the poor, the healthy isn't treated the same as the sick, the intelligent isn't treated the same as the ignorant. What material constant compels you to treat humans equally?


3- If there is no objectively wrong action, then banning atheism is not objectively wrong.

Again, because you are desperate to dehumanize all non-theists, you conclude that we perceive morality to be objective. I could recommend some reading for you to help dispel your ignorance, if I believed you were open minded enough to read them.

God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything
by Christopher Hitchens

Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth
by Reza Aslan

The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values
by Sam Harris

On Humanism
by Richard Norman

It is not my opinion or wish to dehumanize atheists, but I wonder why you think it is wrong or a bad thing. Aren't the majority religious?
The word "ignorance" seems to be in synonym with "opposing opinion", interesting.

Already read two (Hitchen's and Sam's). Might give the other books a read though.

Interesting he makes these claims on a thread by bully.

He can't answer you D'fang. His ideology is irrational and he will not want to examine it rationally. Secular humanism is certainly not for thinkers.
ethang5
Posts: 4,088
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2014 12:43:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/18/2014 11:21:01 AM, debateuser wrote:
At 8/18/2014 10:46:10 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 8/18/2014 9:43:30 AM, debateuser wrote:
At 8/18/2014 9:16:43 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 8/16/2014 8:42:23 AM, bulproof wrote:
Try it theists.
https://www.youtube.com...

How I love that John Lennon song!

Oh, not because of any musical virtue it might have, but because it is a classic case of reality slapping the logic challenged atheist in the face.

If we had the world John Lennon sings about in the song, he still would have been shot by that mental retard! All his "imagines" would not bring about the world his songs assumes would exist if there were no religion (nothing to kill or die for). Unless you agree that a world without Jodie Foster would be better.

Hey John, your song had one stanza missing

Imagine there's no mental illness
It's easy if you try....
No retards or idiots, a total lack of numbskulls
Imagine all the people, thinking logicallyyyyyyyy

Yooouuuu...you might say I'm a dreamer,
but I'm not he only one,
I hope some day you'll join us
and the world will live as one.

Complete stupidity.

But it sure sounds good tho....

Atheists have higher IQ as has been shown in different studies.

I'm willing that you didn't take part in any of those studies.

But u took part in the study as a theist. Lol

lol, I was going to counter that I am obviously smarter than you but then I thought, "that's like saying you're taller than Tyrion Lannister".

Anyway, anyone it isn't apparent to is probably not one whose opinion I'd care about.
The_Immortal_Emris
Posts: 474
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2014 1:23:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
1- Atheist can only rationally perceive morality as personal and relative to humans.

Which allows us to view each other as actual people, with actual value, rather than dehumanize those we disagree with religiously. Unlike Christians like you, who dehumanize non-theists so it's easier for you to shield yourself in ignorance and hate us.

OK, so this is like, one of the most vague statements I've seen.

So, like, oh mah gowsh. So, like, vague guys. What are you, a valley girl?

Do you even know what the word vague means? Nothing about the above statement was vague.

Are there wrong ways to perseve people? I get rational and irrational ways, but what makes viewpoints morally superior?

Says the person insisting their moral viewpoint is superior.

What are those values, what are they based on, and what enforces them?

The values are enough to fill a book, which is why I offered several resources for you to illuminate yourself with.

They are based on reality, unlike your values.

They are superior, due to their inability to be twisted into violence, again, unlike your moral viewpoints, which have been used for centuries as an excuse for murder.

Are humans equal for us to pin point a group that shares a characteristic? What do you mean by "dehumanize"?

By dictating what "all atheists" believe, you are making them into a simple, single unit for you to dismiss the humanity of and hate without logical reason. Much like the word vague, you seem to not understand simple definitions for simple terms.

Ignorance isn't a bad thing persay, but I have no idea where the claim that I seek ignorance came from. Neither do I hate people based on subjective thoughts and beliefs.

Yet you're more than willing to stereotype people and dehumanize them in order to form a cohesive image in your mind which you can lambaste.

If all morality is personal and relative to humans, then human rights and liberties are foremost in the minds of atheists and non-theists. Meaning we treat our fellow man as equals. Christians like you, however, treat those who do not fit into your specific, acceptable categories, as lesser than you, and you justify it by creating delusions of graduate based on the withheld love of your imaginary god.

I am a theist who do not believe in subjective morality. Naturally, this argument, which is based on the assumption of subjective morality, does not reflect my opinion. Perhaps my position can be described as a devil's advocate.

Do you even understand English? Secular humanists, which are the vast majority of non-theists, do not believe in subjective morality. So your entire line of "reasoning" is the absence of reason.

I shall not confirm or deny owning an echo chamber. However, I will state that my place of residence is not placed within the boundaries of such structure, hypothetical it is or not.

In attempting to sound clever, you've once again shown your lack of command of the English language.

As for the second part... Whoa Whoa Whoa. Hold your horses partna.
"human rights and liberties"? Prove to us that "human rights and liberties" should be applied everywhere regardless of the opinion of majority and/or those who are in power.

And you just claimed you don't believe in subjective morality. So now you're a proven hypocrite. Do you, or do you NOT believe in concrete morality?

(Meaning that it is ought to be applied from the beginning of history till now).

Again, I don't think you fully grasp English. You keep making statements with no meaning.

Where does this principle come from and who decides it as some universal principle?

Humanism. Thousands of years of human existence. Logic and reason.

In fact, prove to me that it is not an illogical principle.

WHAT? You're not even sure what you're asking about. You don't even know what "it" is.

Since you are a materialist, then it would be economically rational if the benefit outweighs the cost.

Again, you stereotype me as a "materialist", when I have not even stated my personal position. Again you dehumanize and stereotype in order to build a strawman to hate.

Point to me an objective (Avoiding bringing your opinion or "what I feel like" into this, as you already agreed to premise #1 (No, your opinion or "what you feel like" is not superior to other people. Such big ego...)) materialistic (non-spiritual) value humanitarian effort and sacrifice provides for it to be rational.

Again, you demonstrate a terrible use of English. You can't even express a cogent point, due to an overarching need to demonstrate the intellect you do not possess. Not only that, but you usher your ignorance in with direct ad hominem. Hypocrisy in action, again.

Here's the non-sentence you actually wrote, removing the parenthetical material:

Point to me an objective materialistic value humanitarian effort and sacrifice provides for it to be rational.

Learn English or move to Russia. It's impossible to answer a question so poorly asked.

The entirety of enlightenment thinking, and the exit from the Christian Dark Ages can be attributed directly to secular humanism.

http://atheism.about.com...

To suggest they have not made notable and easily documented impacts on humanitarian efforts is the epitome of willful, historical ignorance.

I mean the rich aren't treated the same as the poor, the healthy isn't treated the same as the sick, the intelligent isn't treated the same as the ignorant. What material constant compels you to treat humans equally?

Humanism.

You do realize that Christians claim we live in a Christian nation, correct?

Why then, do your value systems not compel your believers to treat the poor equal to the rich?

Because Christianity is a perversion of what it was meant to be.

Humanism is making waves and will be the driving force of morality in the future, thankfully. It will be nice to see society stop behaving like hypocritical, false Christians.

3- If there is no objectively wrong action, then banning atheism is not objectively wrong.

Again, because you are desperate to dehumanize all non-theists, you conclude that we perceive morality to be objective. I could recommend some reading for you to help dispel your ignorance, if I believed you were open minded enough to read them.

God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything
by Christopher Hitchens

Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth
by Reza Aslan

The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values
by Sam Harris

On Humanism
by Richard Norman

It is not my opinion or wish to dehumanize atheists, but I wonder why you think it is wrong or a bad thing. Aren't the majority religious?

And here we can see the hypocrisy on even greater display.

It is morally corrupt to dehumanize people to secular humanists, because we view all people as equal. It might be easy for a false Christian to take shelter in their "majority", (denial is more like it), in order to devalue other human beings, but humanists do not subscribe to the pettiness false Christians adhere to.

The word "ignorance" seems to be in synonym with "opposing opinion", interesting.

Only if the opposing opinion is based on ignorance.

Already read two (Hitchen's and Sam's). Might give the other books a read though.

I don't believe that for an instant. If you were capable of reading these books, you would have a grasp of what humanists believe.
The_Immortal_Emris
Posts: 474
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2014 1:45:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/18/2014 12:33:49 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 8/18/2014 11:27:11 AM, The_Immortal_Emris wrote:
At 8/18/2014 10:53:27 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 8/18/2014 10:11:28 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Ah... The beautiful dream of Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot, Fidel Castro, Che Guevara, Kim Il-sung. im Sold!

1- Atheist can only rationally perceive morality as personal and relative to humans.

Correct. But I've always wondered why.

Actually, this is an incredibly ignorant statement, and displays your bigotry.

Yes. From your last post I can see that you think every Christian move is about you.

What are you even talking about. You make a blanket statement about all non-theists, and it is an ignorant statement. I pointed that out. What are you even talking about Christian "moves" for? What the hell is a Christian "move"? Is it like the macarena?

We all believe morality is objective so as to abuse you. lol.

Such stupidity. I do not give two craps what ignorance you believe. I give a damn when you parrot idiocy such as stereotyping all non-theists as subjective moralists, because it is untrue. You lie, then claim I'm playing some victim card for disagreeing with your obviously bigoted and ignorant opinion, casting all non-theists in the same mold.

You agreed that Atheist can only rationally perceive morality as personal and relative to humans, you even suggested a reason why that is.

That doesn't mean non-theists believe in subjective morality. I am not even an Atheist.

I take great objection to anyone who says "ALL X BELIEVE IN Y", because that is ignorance and stereotyping.

But when I observe the same thing you've validated, you say my statement is incredibly ignorant and displays my bigotry.

Because your lack of reading comprehension forces you to view my words and twist them into something which fits your bigotry, when my words validated NONE of what you claim. Again, you lie, because you cannot be honest and come out ahead in a logical discussion.

You are going to be a splendid teaching tool.

I mean, they don't have to believe it, simply comprehend it.

Comprehend what?
I swear Gentle Reader, I did not set this up. He really wrote that response on his own.

And as any gentle reader can see, it was in response to your lack of a cogent statement. You do not express who "they" is, nor do you detail what "it" is. You're, once again, relying on ignorance and blather rather than logic and reason.

But try as I might, I've never gotten one light bulb above a single atheists head to light up.

Not a student of the apostrophe, I see. Likely you aren't very good at communicating.

lol. I guess not.

This much is painfully clear. You can't express thoughts in any organized way.

What are you trying to "light up", in an atheists head? You haven't even made it clear what you're attempting to enlighten them to. Again, dehumanization and ignorance are your bastions.

Yes! That is what we're all trying to do to you. Dehumanize you.

Again, you make assumptions that I am an atheist, simply because I reject your bigoted perception of atheism. Again, you base your argument upon ignorance. There is a clear pattern here. You are armored in blind ignorance.

2- If all morality is personal and relative to humans, then objectively, there is no wrong action.
True, but they will irrationally insist that there are "wrong" actions. Wrong being defined as, "Whatever I don't like."

Again, you dehumanize and claim you understand non-theists, but all you understand is the inhuman straw man you have built to burn.

Yet you cannot say what the straw man is, or why it's a straw man.

I have clearly shown what the straw man is. Your own quotes indicate your bigotry. You make statements regarding ALL atheists, because you are bigoted against them and choose to see them as less than human.

It is a strawman, because you cannot possibly know all atheists. You have an obvious ignorance of what humanism is. You have expressed patently false statements, quoted above, which are based entirely on your personal misconceptions.

That's how you are guilty of building a bigoted strawman to burn.

you have not touched one point made in DragonFang's post. Only accused him of trying to somehow oppress you.

Except I have, and again, you assume I am an atheist, simply because I reject your ignorance and bigotry. I have claimed no form of oppression, though you have been quick to claim I have. Again, more straw man building and ignorance from you.

Your bigotry is obvious, and your ignorance of humanism even more so.

I am convinced that you see Christians as bigoted.

If you were the only Christian I knew, this would be true. Luckily, I know actually intelligent Christians.

Though I have never trolled an atheist site insulting both atheist and the things they hold dear.

And I have never trolled a Christian site, insulting both Christians and the things they hold dear.

You however, have been happy to lie about what ALL ATHEISTS believe, to better hate them and foster hatred of them. Because you are a bigoted and ignorant person.

But we know that you think reality and what you believe are the same thing.

Again, you stereotype and cast assumptions. Another salvo of ignorant intolerance from you.

3- If there is no objectively wrong action, then banning atheism is not objectively wrong.

Substitute "Christianity" for "atheism" in that sentence and though it will have the exact same logic, atheists will suddenly agree that it is perfectly logical.

No secular humanist wants to ban any religious practice. We don't like your religion, because it create people who are so blinded by their dogma, that they dehumanize non-theists.

...because it creates people....

That is why the intelligent aren't grammar Nazis. Glass houses, stones.

A single missed (s) is a far cry from the piss poor use of English you have displayed. At least my statement was cogent and based in reality. I notice you can't refute it, only critique the very minor typo.

All you're doing here is repeating claims you probably heard from some guru of yours. Can you use logic to show any dehumanization?

Yes, when you stereotype ALL ATHEISTS as you have repeatedly done, that is a form of dehumanization.

Evidence of that reality is plane to see in your own posts.

I know for you, reality resides between your ears, but the rest of us can't see what's happening there. It isn't as "clear" to us. Do something more than telling us your beliefs.

When you claim "ALL ATHEISTS" believe something, you are forming a stereotype which contributed to your perception.

You're angry that non-theists assign stereotypical behavior to you, but you're more than willing to live up the the stereotype and do the same to them.

Oh, I'm angry, but it is the atheists who always seek me out to insult Jesus and then go into spittle-filled rants.

I rest my case. Bigot.

lol. Enlighten? What makes you think enlightening anyone is my goal? The truth is never toxic. Reality is not defined as "what you find pleasant".

Your entire argument is based on a lie and a strawman. You have no truth.

Secular humanism is nothing but self worship.

Another stereotype. Another case of dehumanization. Another strawman.

I do not care for how wonderful you think you and humanism are. Do you have anything of intellectual value to post?

Clearly more than you.

Yes. It is my stumbling in the dark that brought you here. You're imaginary.

I'm imaginary? Yes, there's that command of the language again. Bravo.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2014 3:14:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/18/2014 1:23:17 PM, The_Immortal_Emris wrote:
OK, so this is like, one of the most vague statements I've seen.

So, like, oh mah gowsh. So, like, vague guys. What are you, a valley girl?

Do you even know what the word vague means? Nothing about the above statement was vague.

I see you can communicate valleyspeak fluently. I was trying to be considerate, but oh well, so many ungrateful people.

Vague is taking it lightly. An oxymoron is more appropriate, for you are speaking about subjective opinions they are objective facts.

Are there wrong ways to perseve people? I get rational and irrational ways, but what makes viewpoints morally superior?

Says the person insisting their moral viewpoint is superior.

*sips tea* I believe in objective morality. Unless you wish to announce a recon, you believe in subjective morality. *sips tea*

What are those values, what are they based on, and what enforces them?

The values are enough to fill a book, which is why I offered several resources for you to illuminate yourself with.

They are based on reality, unlike your values.

They are superior, due to their inability to be twisted into violence, again, unlike your moral viewpoints, which have been used for centuries as an excuse for murder.

So you wanna debate the moral landscape garbage (is-ought fallacy extraordinaire)?
Please prove that violence is heinous and vile before I can take your claim seriously. Also simplistic view: Religion deals with humans beings, expecting them to not address violence and peace is absurd, what matters is which path does it preach to.

Are humans equal for us to pin point a group that shares a characteristic? What do you mean by "dehumanize"?

By dictating what "all atheists" believe, you are making them into a simple, single unit for you to dismiss the humanity of and hate without logical reason. Much like the word vague, you seem to not understand simple definitions for simple terms.

By "dehumanize" you make it sound like my devil advocate position wishes for everyone to be treated equally except atheist. Which my devil advocate position does not.

Ignorance isn't a bad thing persay, but I have no idea where the claim that I seek ignorance came from. Neither do I hate people based on subjective thoughts and beliefs.

Yet you're more than willing to stereotype people and dehumanize them in order to form a cohesive image in your mind which you can lambaste.

Two cookies for the immortal psychologist! Now explain why the devil advocate position made a mistake or is immoral for doing that.

I am a theist who do not believe in subjective morality. Naturally, this argument, which is based on the assumption of subjective morality, does not reflect my opinion. Perhaps my position can be described as a devil's advocate.

Do you even understand English? Secular humanists, which are the vast majority of non-theists, do not believe in subjective morality. So your entire line of "reasoning" is the absence of reason.

Oooooohhh... This is getting interesting. I won't even talk smack about your bogus understanding of humanism. Please, do pray tell where thou objective morality cometh from.

I get to facepalm myself if you propose social pressure or evolution.

I shall not confirm or deny owning an echo chamber. However, I will state that my place of residence is not placed within the boundaries of such structure, hypothetical it is or not.

In attempting to sound clever, you've once again shown your lack of command of the English language.

DUD3, y0U 5H0ULD 83C0m3 4 Pr0F35510n4L wr173r! 1 837 y0U'D 83C0m3 4 m1LL10n41r3 7H47 w4y.

As for the second part... Whoa Whoa Whoa. Hold your horses partna.
"human rights and liberties"? Prove to us that "human rights and liberties" should be applied everywhere regardless of the opinion of majority and/or those who are in power.

And you just claimed you don't believe in subjective morality. So now you're a proven hypocrite. Do you, or do you NOT believe in concrete morality?

tsk tsk tsk. My devil advocate persona denies any association with the person typing this message. In an other note, the person typing this message finds your redherring 'disgraceful'.

(Meaning that it is ought to be applied from the beginning of history till now).

Again, I don't think you fully grasp English. You keep making statements with no meaning.


Where does this principle come from and who decides it as some universal principle?

Humanism. Thousands of years of human existence. Logic and reason.

Why don't you enlighten us with the arguments logic and reason entails? I mean it is not just an opinion or a personal feeling, right? That would be disappointing.

In fact, prove to me that it is not an illogical principle.

WHAT? You're not even sure what you're asking about. You don't even know what "it" is.

I apologize for my inconsideration. It was not for a lack of respect; I just did not take it into account that you have the memory span of a hamster.

The principle of "human rights and liberty", fool.

Since you are a materialist, then it would be economically rational if the benefit outweighs the cost.

Again, you stereotype me as a "materialist", when I have not even stated my personal position. Again you dehumanize and stereotype in order to build a strawman to hate.

Non-theist + Humanist = naturalist.

a redherring is a smelly fish dragged along the trail of the fox in an attempt to mislead the hunting dogs.

Point to me an objective (Avoiding bringing your opinion or "what I feel like" into this, as you already agreed to premise #1 (No, your opinion or "what you feel like" is not superior to other people. Such big ego...)) materialistic (non-spiritual) value humanitarian effort and sacrifice provides for it to be rational.

Again, you demonstrate a terrible use of English. You can't even express a cogent point, due to an overarching need to demonstrate the intellect you do not possess. Not only that, but you usher your ignorance in with direct ad hominem. Hypocrisy in action, again.

Here's the non-sentence you actually wrote, removing the parenthetical material:

Point to me an objective materialistic value humanitarian effort and sacrifice provides for it to be rational.

Learn English or move to Russia. It's impossible to answer a question so poorly asked.

The entirety of enlightenment thinking, and the exit from the Christian Dark Ages can be attributed directly to secular humanism.

http://atheism.about.com...

To suggest they have not made notable and easily documented impacts on humanitarian efforts is the epitome of willful, historical ignorance.

If this wasn't cliche and "someone shoot me" boring, I'd call it cute.
You are unable to display intelligence or wit in a debate so you masquerade the role of a punctuation nazi. Really? Fuzzing over a fk'n parentheses? (Although if there are actual grammatical mistakes, I'd be glad to learn about them).

There is no ad homenim by anticipating and intercepting a display of ego by you (which happened anyway!). Ad homenim is using a negative characteristic opponents as a premise to conclude a coherence in their arguments, as you may have noticed (or not, depending on your intellectual integrity), you have made no arguments as of yet.

There was no such thing as "secular humanism movement" back then. The term "humanism" was coined in 1808 to describe studying things other than science or engineering. Renaissance humanists was an educational curriculum that promotes the study of humanities rather than just scholasticism.
And the movement was not secular. Willful historical fabrication.

Unless you proceed to answer my points, I will take yo
slo1
Posts: 4,320
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2014 3:40:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/18/2014 10:11:28 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Ah... The beautiful dream of Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot, Fidel Castro, Che Guevara, Kim Il-sung. im Sold!



1- Atheist can only rationally perceive morality as personal and relative to humans.
2- If all morality is personal and relative to humans, then objectively, there is no wrong action.
3- If there is no objectively wrong action, then banning atheism is not objectively wrong.

The great irony here is that you really believe that religion can give objective morality or that some deity clearly wrote these objective morals in a book somewhere. That is funny.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2014 3:40:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/18/2014 1:23:17 PM, The_Immortal_Emris wrote:
It is not my opinion or wish to dehumanize atheists, but I wonder why you think it is wrong or a bad thing. Aren't the majority religious?

And here we can see the hypocrisy on even greater display.

It is morally corrupt to dehumanize people to secular humanists, because we view all people as equal. It might be easy for a false Christian to take shelter in their "majority", (denial is more like it), in order to devalue other human beings, but humanists do not subscribe to the pettiness false Christians adhere to.

Morally corrupt based on your own morality? What makes your own morality objectively better than the morality of a rapist (You can feign shock now *rolls eyes*) or a cannibalistic tribe (You brought the issue of dehumanization...)?

And some people don't view all people as equal. Some materialists (nietzsche for instance) made arguments that the values you are promoting are irrational.

The word "ignorance" seems to be in synonym with "opposing opinion", interesting.

Only if the opposing opinion is based on ignorance.

Nope, in general.

Already read two (Hitchen's and Sam's). Might give the other books a read though.

I don't believe that for an instant. If you were capable of reading these books, you would have a grasp of what humanists believe.

And they believe in irrational junk. Prove to me how morality can be objective without a God, and then I will take it seriously.
The_Immortal_Emris
Posts: 474
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2014 4:47:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I see you can communicate valleyspeak fluently. I was trying to be considerate, but oh well, so many ungrateful people.

Such staggering wit. Such humility and grace. You certainly do credit to your religion.

Vague is taking it lightly. An oxymoron is more appropriate, for you are speaking about subjective opinions they are objective facts.

Again, you don't seem to understand the terms you use. I was talking about your poor grasp of the meaning of the word vague.

*sips tea* I believe in objective morality. Unless you wish to announce a recon, you believe in subjective morality. *sips tea*

Why do you feel the need to tell me what beverage you're drinking? This is a rhetorical question.

You, again, try to dictate what I believe, when you know nothing about me. I do not subscribe to subjective morality, nor have I suggested it. I simply pointed out you're claiming ALL ATHEISTS believe something.

When you lump ALL of a group of people together, you're using what's called a stereotype. That's what bigots use to view the world.

So unless you wish to announce a "recon", you are a bigot. *sips coffee*

So you wanna debate the moral landscape garbage (is-ought fallacy extraordinaire)?

Not with someone who views the world through bigoted eyes.

Please prove that violence is heinous and vile before I can take your claim seriously.

I'd be happy to have a debate on the matter. Would you like to take Con? I know some biblical verses you can quote which support your love of violence and cruelty.

Because *sips coffee* I believe violence is heinous and vile. Unless you wish to announce a "recon" you believe violence is fine and dandy.

It's so easy to use your own illogical words and double standards against you. But you're likely too blind to see the irony.

Religion deals with humans beings

So does humanism. Exclusively so.

By "dehumanize" you make it sound like my devil advocate position wishes for everyone to be treated equally except atheist. Which my devil advocate position does not.

No, your position is that ALL ATHEISTS BELIEVE (INSERT LIE). So you can damage them. You don't treat them equally, why should anyone believe you don't advocate for others to treat them poorly as well?

Ignorance isn't a bad thing persay, but I have no idea where the claim that I seek ignorance came from. Neither do I hate people based on subjective thoughts and beliefs.

But you're more than willing to LIE about what those people believe, so it's easier for others to dislike them, and view them as less human.

Now explain why the devil advocate position made a mistake or is immoral for doing that.

Because everything you claim has been a bigoted stereotype based in falshoods. Doesn't your god say something objective regarding lying? Why do you hate your own god?

I won't even talk smack about your bogus understanding of humanism.

It's good that you aren't trying, because you would be shamed further.

Please, do pray tell where thou objective morality cometh from.

Social pressure and evolution. (just to dig at you)

I could write a bloody dissertation on this, but if you want to actually edify yourself, read Richard Taylor's Good and Evil, then get back to me.

I get to facepalm myself if you propose social pressure or evolution.

I'm sure there many who have dealt with your ignorance who can say the same.

And you just claimed you don't believe in subjective morality. So now you're a proven hypocrite. Do you, or do you NOT believe in concrete morality?

tsk tsk tsk. My devil advocate persona denies any association with the person typing this message. In an other note, the person typing this message finds your redherring 'disgraceful'.

You're the one who presented the Red Herring. It's your fish. And I see you revert back to the "I'M JUST THE DEVIL'S ADVOCATE" line when your hypocrisy is pointed out.

Why don't you enlighten us with the arguments logic and reason entails? I mean it is not just an opinion or a personal feeling, right? That would be disappointing.

Because I have an 8k character limit. Herp-a-derp.

Again, I am not here to write a dissertation on humanism. Only to point out your bigotry.

In fact, prove to me that it is not an illogical principle.

"it" you have failed to define, once again. Please read your posts more carefully so you sound less incoherent.

I apologize for my inconsideration. It was not for a lack of respect; I just did not take it into account that you have the memory span of a hamster.

Again, you have failed to even state what you meant by "it" because you were just rambling incoherently, and you don't even know what you were trying to say.

Again, that staggering wit. Spoken like a person weaned on the blood of jayzus.

Non-theist + Humanist = naturalist.

And here we see the simplicity of your mind. You can't grasp that a non-theist, humanist can also believe in higher powers. So you stereotype and give us a simple equation to define your myopia.

If this wasn't cliche and "someone shoot me" boring, I'd call it cute.

So, when confronted with the facts, you once again display that staggering wit and run away from the discussion in question. Typical bigot.

You are unable to display intelligence or wit in a debate so you masquerade the role of a punctuation nazi.

Hypocrisy. You've already attacked me for forgetting an "s" on the end of a word, now you're projecting again out of rage.

Really? Fuzzing over a fk'n parentheses?

Yeah, when your abuse of the parentheses simply disguise your inability to communicate, it bears making note of.

There is no ad homenim by anticipating and intercepting a display of ego by you.

Clearly you don't understand that term either. You should try passing an English course before stepping up to defend your bigotry.

I also notice you dropped the stoic devil's advocate BS. Your true anger and rage is showing.

Ad homenim is using a negative characteristic opponents as a premise to conclude a coherence in their arguments, as you may have noticed (or not, depending on your intellectual integrity), you have made no arguments as of yet.

Well, we already know you're not the brigtest bulb, but as I have been the only individual to provide actual sources for anything, you look like a fool for saying this.

And the fact that you ignore or misrepresent all of my statements, pretty much indicates you have no ground to stand on.

There was no such thing as "secular humanism movement" back then.

Then immediately

The term "humanism" was coined in 1808 to describe studying things other than science or engineering.

Then immediately

Renaissance humanists was an educational curriculum that promotes the study of humanitie

Not only did you contradict your own statement. You did it in the two sentences following the statement.

I couldn't have asked you for a better example of your overwhelming ignorance and willful stupidity.
bulproof
Posts: 25,211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2014 7:34:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
One of the most beautiful songs ever, with a message of peace has really brought the religious hatred and spittle laden vitriol, hasn't it?

So sad.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
ethang5
Posts: 4,088
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 9:53:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/18/2014 7:34:27 PM, bulproof wrote:
One of the most beautiful songs ever, with a message of peace has really brought the religious hatred and spittle laden vitriol, hasn't it?

So sad.

Wow. You even look like a crocodile when you cry those tears. Aren't you going to thank me for saving your dead thread?
bulproof
Posts: 25,211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 9:56:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 9:53:35 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 8/18/2014 7:34:27 PM, bulproof wrote:
One of the most beautiful songs ever, with a message of peace has really brought the religious hatred and spittle laden vitriol, hasn't it?

So sad.

Wow. You even look like a crocodile when you cry those tears. Aren't you going to thank me for saving your dead thread?

Here is the LOVE of a christian.

At 8/18/2014 9:16:43 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 8/16/2014 8:42:23 AM, bulproof wrote:
Try it theists.
https://www.youtube.com...

How I love that John Lennon song!

Oh, not because of any musical virtue it might have, but because it is a classic case of reality slapping the logic challenged atheist in the face.

If we had the world John Lennon sings about in the song, he still would have been shot by that mental retard! All his "imagines" would not bring about the world his songs assumes would exist if there were no religion (nothing to kill or die for). Unless you agree that a world without Jodie Foster would be better.

Hey John, your song had one stanza missing

Imagine there's no mental illness
It's easy if you try....
No retards or idiots, a total lack of numbskulls
Imagine all the people, thinking logicallyyyyyyyy

Yooouuuu...you might say I'm a dreamer,
but I'm not he only one,
I hope some day you'll join us
and the world will live as one.

Complete stupidity.

But it sure sounds good tho....

Pathetic really.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
The_Immortal_Emris
Posts: 474
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 10:32:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
It is not my opinion or wish to dehumanize atheists, but I wonder why you think it is wrong or a bad thing. Aren't the majority religious?

And here we can see the hypocrisy on even greater display.

It is morally corrupt to dehumanize people to secular humanists, because we view all people as equal. It might be easy for a false Christian to take shelter in their "majority", (denial is more like it), in order to devalue other human beings, but humanists do not subscribe to the pettiness false Christians adhere to.

Morally corrupt based on your own morality? What makes your own morality objectively better than the morality of a rapist (You can feign shock now *rolls eyes*) or a cannibalistic tribe (You brought the issue of dehumanization...)?

Again you dehumanize by likening an aversion to religious dogma with rape.

How very jesus-like. You shame his memory.

It's not MY morality which I base this off of, its OUR morality, as human beings, established by thousands of years of societal structure, and examination of biological and emotional imperatives.

And some people don't view all people as equal.

Clearly you are one of them.

Some materialists (nietzsche for instance) made arguments that the values you are promoting are irrational.

Some Christians, such as Torquemada murdered over 10,000 people. Where is your objective morality now? Because clearly that one example invalidates your entire religion.

The word "ignorance" seems to be in synonym with "opposing opinion", interesting.

Only if the opposing opinion is based on ignorance.

Nope, in general.

Such staggering wit on display again.

Already read two (Hitchen's and Sam's). Might give the other books a read though.

I don't believe that for an instant. If you were capable of reading these books, you would have a grasp of what humanists believe.

And they believe in irrational junk.

...They literally believe in rationality and evidence based observation.

Direct from the source, you think rationality and evidence is "irrational junk", but your personal fairy tail is 100 percent truthiness.

Prove to me how morality can be objective without a God, and then I will take it seriously.

Prove to me god exists in order to prove objective morality exists. Otherwise, the existence of objective morality without good is proof enough that god is not needed for objective morality to exist.

The burden of proof is on you.

We already both agree objective morality exists, and we can demonstrate it. Sadly, you cannot demonstrate the existence of your god, therefore you have the BOP.

Check mate.
ethang5
Posts: 4,088
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 10:53:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/18/2014 1:45:21 PM, The_Immortal_Emris wrote:
At 8/18/2014 12:33:49 PM, ethang5 wrote:

Long ago, I had a night job where I worked with this guy much like Im-Em here. he told me that reality was whatever he believed.

I asked, "So if you believed this building (3 stories) was made of ice cream, it would be?"

He looked me dead in the eyes and without humor replied "Yes. It would be."

Of course, after that I know we would never have a discussion based on logic or reason.

What the hell is a Christian "move"? Is it like the macarena?

No, it's more like the funky chicken.

We all believe morality is objective so as to abuse you. lol.

Such stupidity. I do not give two craps what ignorance you believe. I give a damn when you parrot idiocy such as stereotyping all non-theists as subjective moralists, because it is untrue.

I said atheists, not non-theists. Outrage isn't a substitute for reason.

You lie, then claim I'm playing some victim card for disagreeing with your obviously bigoted and ignorant opinion, casting all non-theists in the same mold.

You only made a bald claim and then stated it was "obvious". That isn't argumentation, that is stupidity. We know it's "obvious" to you. All what passes for thought in your head is "obvious" to you. Why do you assume it's obvious to us also?

You agreed that Atheist can only rationally perceive morality as personal and relative to humans, you even suggested a reason why that is.

That doesn't mean non-theists believe in subjective morality. I am not even an Atheist.

Then you weren't included in the blanket statement. Why are you foaming and throwing spittle?

I take great objection to anyone who says "ALL X BELIEVE IN Y", because that is ignorance and stereotyping.

Take all the exception you like. It's free. If you ever find an atheist who believes in objective morality please introduce him to me. I would respect that more than your spittle-filled outrage.

I mean, they don't have to believe it, simply comprehend it.

Comprehend what?

lol. You can't comprehend it Im-Em. Pay attention.

I swear Gentle Reader, I did not set this up. He really wrote that response on his own.

And as any gentle reader can see, it was in response to your lack of a cogent statement. You do not express who "they" is, nor do you detail what "it" is.

He didn't go over it, didn't review it. He still doesn't get it. He probably won't get it even if he went over it. I detect the dis-jointed thinking common with heavy users of a certain recreational drug.

But try as I might, I've never gotten one light bulb above a single atheists head to light up.

Not a student of the apostrophe, I see. Likely you aren't very good at communicating.

lol. I guess not.

This much is painfully clear. You can't express thoughts in any organized way.

By "organized" I guess you mean the way you do it right? lol.

What are you trying to "light up", in an atheists head? You haven't even made it clear what you're attempting to enlighten them to. Again, dehumanization and ignorance are your bastions.

Just type dh. It'll save you about 2000 letters each post.

Yes! That is what we're all trying to do to you. Dehumanize you.

Again, you make assumptions that I am an atheist, simply because I reject your bigoted perception of atheism.

I don't know if you're atheist. I do know that you're kinda dim. And that you are a victim of that particular brand of American neo-modern stupidity, secular humanism.

2- If all morality is personal and relative to humans, then objectively, there is no wrong action.

True, but they will irrationally insist that there are "wrong" actions. Wrong being defined as, "Whatever I don't like."

Again, you dehumanize and claim you understand non-theists, but all you understand is the inhuman straw man you have built to burn.

Case in point. This is one of the things "He doesn't like."

It is a strawman, because you cannot possibly know all atheists.

Do you have an example which can prove me wrong?

That's how you are guilty of building a bigoted strawman to burn.

How can a strawman be bigoted?

you have not touched one point made in DragonFang's post. Only accused him of trying to somehow oppress you.

I have claimed no form of oppression, ....

Bigotry? Dehumanization? Lying? Dude, you really need to lay off the ganja for a while.

If you were the only Christian I knew, this would be true. Luckily, I know actually intelligent Christians.

Lol, so you dehumanize only the unintelligent Christians?

Though I have never trolled an atheist site insulting both atheist and the things they hold dear.

And I have never trolled a Christian site, insulting both Christians and the things they hold dear.

Yet here you are, on a theist site......

You however, have been happy to lie about what ALL ATHEISTS believe, to better hate them and foster hatred of them. Because you are a bigoted and ignorant person.

You probably think that if you say this enough, someone will believe it. Just show one atheist who proves my comment wrong. Ranting is not argumentation.

3- If there is no objectively wrong action, then banning atheism is not objectively wrong.

Substitute "Christianity" for "atheism" in that sentence and though it will have the exact same logic, atheists will suddenly agree that it is perfectly logical.

No secular humanist wants to ban any religious practice. We don't like your religion, because it create people who are so blinded by their dogma, that they dehumanize non-theists.

...because it creates people....

That is why the intelligent aren't grammar Nazis. Glass houses, stones.

A single missed (s) is a far cry from the piss poor use of English you have displayed. At least my statement was cogent and based in reality. I notice you can't refute it, only critique the very minor typo.

I've never met anyone so obtuse! Well, maybe perhaps bully, but wow! Im_El, when you critiqued my "major" typo, did you address my point? And I take it that your grammar is piss-rich?

All you're doing here is repeating claims you probably heard from some guru of yours. Can you use logic to show any dehumanization?

Yes, when you stereotype ALL ATHEISTS as you have repeatedly done, that is a form of dehumanization.

How about when you call someone stupid? Or bigoted? or a liar? Or ignorant? Let me guess, when you do it, it isn't dh. Right?

Evidence of that reality is plane to see in your own posts.

You should take a non-tanked look at some of your posts. Really.

I know for you, reality resides between your ears, but the rest of us can't see what's happening there. It isn't as "clear" to us. Do something more than telling us your beliefs.

When you claim "ALL ATHEISTS" believe something, you are forming a stereotype which contributed to your perception.

All atheists believe there is no God. What stereotype did that form? lol. Stupid outraged people are so much fun!

Again, can you find an atheist who doesn't believe it? Or should we take it on faith when you say so?

You're angry that non-theists assign stereotypical behavior to you, but you're more than willing to live up the the stereotype and do the same to them.

Oh, I'm angry, but it is the atheists who always seek me out to insult Jesus and then go into spittle-filled rants.

I rest my case. Bigot.

Your case has always been resting. I don't need to insult you. Your posts do that for me just fine.

Secular humanism is nothing but self worship.

Another stereotype. Another case of dehumanization. Another strawman.

Poor baby. Lucky you don't claim to be oppressed.
ethang5
Posts: 4,088
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 11:29:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 9:56:28 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/19/2014 9:53:35 AM, ethang5 wrote:

One of the most beautiful songs ever, with a message of peace has really brought the religious hatred and spittle laden vitriol, hasn't it?

So sad.

Wow. You even look like a crocodile when you cry those tears. Aren't you going to thank me for saving your dead thread?

Here is the LOVE of a christian.

Ah. Tactic #27. Now I'm terrible for NOT going by the book at others times he'll call evil. American atheism, more uses than duct tape!

Since you won't thank me for saving your dead thread, I'll leave your numerous other dead threads to die slow deaths. You will shamelessly bump them, but when people see the titles, and that the last poster is you, they will leave them for the clunkers they are. Your reputation precedes you.

But if you ask me nicely, I might help some of your troll droppings from a lonely death. Your choice.

How I love that John Lennon song!

Oh, not because of any musical virtue it might have, but because it is a classic case of reality slapping the logic challenged atheist in the face.

If we had the world John Lennon sings about in the song, he still would have been shot by that mental retard! All his "imagines" would not bring about the world his songs assumes would exist if there were no religion (nothing to kill or die for). Unless you agree that a world without Jodie Foster would be better.

Hey John, your song had one stanza missing

Imagine there's no mental illness
It's easy if you try....
No retards or idiots, a total lack of numbskulls
Imagine all the people, thinking logicallyyyyyyyy

Yooouuuu...you might say I'm a dreamer,
but I'm not he only one,
I hope some day you'll join us
and the world will live as one.

Complete stupidity.

But it sure sounds good tho....

Pathetic really.

Well, I wouldn't call the song pathetic. The melody was not bad. The stupid atheist mentality behind the song, now that was pathetic.
The_Immortal_Emris
Posts: 474
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 11:41:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Long ago, I had a night job where I worked with this guy much like Im-Em here. he told me that reality was whatever he believed.

Then he's nothing like me. I am not surprised you can't grasp the differences. You do not have sharp perception.

Of course, after that I know we would never have a discussion based on logic or reason.

No 1 curr. Seriously. No one will believe you BS story either, you can't even come up with real anecdotal examples because you live such a close minded life.

What the hell is a Christian "move"? Is it like the macarena?

No, it's more like the funky chicken.

Yes, it reeks and gives people indigestion.

I said atheists, not non-theists. Outrage isn't a substitute for reason.

You're still wrong, still parroting ignorance, and still stereotyping. Stereotyping isn't a substitute for reason either, yet you employ the former often and the later sparingly.

You only made a bald claim and then stated it was "obvious".

Only have made the "bald" claims. I notice you couldn't quote me, because you know you're just lying to yourself in defense of your willful ignorance and bigotry.

All what passes for thought in your head is "obvious" to you. Why do you assume it's obvious to us also?

Yes, I realize now I shouldn't have expected you to show any semblance of intellect.

You agreed that Atheist can only rationally perceive morality as personal and relative to humans, you even suggested a reason why that is.

That doesn't mean I find morality to be subjective. You can't seem to hold these two ideas in your mind. That is a sign of base intelligence.

Then you weren't included in the blanket statement. Why are you foaming and throwing spittle?

Because I detest hypocrisy, bigotry and ignorance, which you exude like the smell of your funky chicken.

Take all the exception you like. It's free. If you ever find an atheist who believes in objective morality please introduce him to me.

Why, so you can deny they believe what they believe, insult them, then cling to your piety like the social crutch you use it as? Why would I subject someone of intelligence to you?

Comprehend what?

lol. You can't comprehend it Im-Em. Pay attention.

You have yet to clarify what "it" is. But again, you're not clever enough to realize how bad you are at communicating in your own language.

He didn't go over it, didn't review it. He still doesn't get it. He probably won't get it even if he went over it. I detect the dis-jointed thinking common with heavy users of a certain recreational drug.

Ha, you're talking to imaginary, invisible friends and you think I'm on drugs. Irony.

You still have failed to show what "it" and "they" are. And you can't point it out, because looking back, you realize you were rambling like an inbred baptist preacher on cocaine.

I don't know if you're atheist. I do know that you're kinda dim. And that you are a victim of that particular brand of American neo-modern stupidity, secular humanism.

Yes, I value intelligence and reason, evidence and science, human prosperity and education, and this makes me "stupid" to you.

Meanwhile, you parrot ignorance, subscribe to bigoted stereotypes, attack intellectualism and rage against non-existent threats to your way of life, like such an intellectual. What a fantasy world you live in.

It is a strawman, because you cannot possibly know all atheists.

Do you have an example which can prove me wrong?

More than a few.

Scott Atran.
Pascal Boyer.
Daniel Dennett.
Emile Durkheim.
Stewart Guthrie.

How can a strawman be bigoted?

Answer this yourself, as you built it.

I have claimed no form of oppression, ....

Bigotry? Dehumanization? Lying? Dude, you really need to lay off the ganja for a while.

Again, I am not an atheist. I am not a victim of your crude efforts to dehumanize. I simply pointed them out, pointed out your dishonesty, and held you accountable for your lies and hypocrisy.

And you still aren't intelligent enough to remember that I am not an Atheist. I simply notice you can't stop attacking them and dehumanizing them. You should lay off the blood of Christ, it's making you even more foolish.

Lol, so you dehumanize only the unintelligent Christians?

No, only bigoted ones. It just so happens the stupid ones are often the bigots.

Yet here you are, on a theist site......

This is not a theist site. Again, you demonstrate such ignorance I almost suspect you have a mental handicap.

You probably think that if you say this enough, someone will believe it. Just show one atheist who proves my comment wrong. Ranting is not argumentation.

There is no need to prove bigotry wrong as it is not based in reality, and reality proves it wrong by simply being. You have the burden of proof. You claimed ALL ATHEISTS believe something. Now prove it. Or stop lying.

I could claim ALL CHRISTIANS are closeted homosexuals. Prove otherwise. Go on. Give me one example. I'll just say that person is in denial. See how this works? You have the BOP to prove your bigotry.

...because it creates people....

If you're an example of this "strength", I think you have another term you need to learn the definition for.

Weak-minded followers are not "strong" people.

Zealots are not "strong". They are ignorance personified.

IF knowledge is power, your brand of religious belief breeds the weakest of humanity.

How about when you call someone stupid? Or bigoted? or a liar? Or ignorant? Let me guess, when you do it, it isn't dh. Right?

1. I only called you stupid after you began throwing personal insults at me. At that point, you opened the door.

2. You are a bigot. Stop being a bigot and I'll stop calling you out for it.

3. You are a liar. You claimed "ALL ATHEISTS BELIEVE X", which you cannot possibly know, and cannot prove, therefore it is a falsehood based on you bigoted and ignorant perception. You lied, based on your ignorance. You're a liar.

4. You are ignorant, that much is clear to see.

5. I am not dehumanizing you, I am pointing out how you have dehumanized yourself through your own hypocrisy.

6. I have not targeted "all" Christians, just a single, closed-minded little bigot.

All atheists believe there is no God. What stereotype did that form? lol. Stupid outraged people are so much fun!

Except that's not what you claimed before. You claimed all atheists believe in subjective morality. You lied based on your ignorance and bigotry.

Again, can you find an atheist who doesn't believe it? Or should we take it on faith when you say so?

I can find plenty of non-theists who aren't atheist, but atheism BY DEFINITION means a disbelief in god. Atheism BY DEFINITION does not mean a belief in subjective morality.

You lied, you are continuing to lie, and you're still a bigot.

Oh, I'm angry, but it is the atheists who always seek me out to insult Jesus and then go into spittle-filled rants.

I rest my case. Bigot.

Your case has always been resting. I don't need to insult you. Your posts do that for me just fine.

Yeah, because you haven't been insulting at ALL since the beginning of your own sequence of spittle filled, ignorance laden, bigotry fueled diatribes against atheists and humanists.

Secular humanism is nothing but self worship.

Another stereotype. Another case of dehumanization

Obvious for all to see, your overwhelming bigotry.
ethang5
Posts: 4,088
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 12:55:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 11:41:40 AM, The_Immortal_Emris wrote:

Long ago, I had a night job where I worked with this guy much like Im-Em here. he told me that reality was whatever he believed.

Then he's nothing like me. I am not surprised you can't grasp the differences. You do not have sharp perception.

His thinking is like yours. You think things are real because you think them.

What the hell is a Christian "move"? Is it like the macarena?

No, it's more like the funky chicken.

Yes, it reeks and gives people indigestion.

I now know your approx age.

I said atheists, not non-theists. Outrage isn't a substitute for reason.

You're still wrong,

You were wrong. you assumed I meant all non-theists when I said atheists.

Stereotyping isn't a substitute for reason either,

You say so.

You only made a bald claim and then stated it was "obvious".

No support from Em-Im.

All what passes for thought in your head is "obvious" to you. Why do you assume it's obvious to us also?

Yes, I realize now I shouldn't have expected you to show any semblance of intellect.

lol, intellect is knowing what's rolling around in your head? No wonder I haven't any.

You agreed that Atheist can only rationally perceive morality as personal and relative to humans, you even suggested a reason why that is.

That doesn't mean I find morality to be subjective.

I didn't say you did. The debate is out here, not in your head.

Then you weren't included in the blanket statement. Why are you foaming and throwing spittle?

Because I detest hypocrisy, bigotry and ignorance, which you exude like the smell of your funky chicken.

If I had a dollar for every time some self-righteous humanist moron got outraged at me, I'd be Bill Gates. No one cares what you detest, or how outraged you are. Stop throwing spittle and think a little. This isn't a stupidity contest, I'd know better than to challenge you.

Take all the exception you like. It's free. If you ever find an atheist who believes in objective morality please introduce him to me.

Why, so you can deny they believe what they believe,...

Thank you. I'm wrong but you cannot show it. There are atheists who believe in objective morality but you can't show one. Ok.

Why would I subject someone of intelligence to you?

To prove you could recognize one.

Comprehend what?

lol. You can't comprehend it Im-Em. Pay attention.

You have yet to clarify what "it" is.

If you were intelligent, you'd know because it was in the passage. You missed it and continue to miss it because you are dimwitted and have been led to believe being humanist means you're smart. You aren't.

I detect the dis-jointed thinking common with heavy users of a certain recreational drug.

Ha, you're talking to imaginary, invisible friends and you think I'm on drugs. Irony.

You are the one who called yourself imaginary. But as DF said, you seem to have the memory of a hamster. Do you deny being a weed smoker?

Yes, I value intelligence and reason, evidence and science, human prosperity and education, ....

Then why don't you show it here? When you are less "high", you'll look back on your words here and do a face palm.

...and it makes me "stupid" to you.

Your posts make it clear that you aren't very bright. Your over-the-top outrage just makes you laughable.

Meanwhile, you parrot ignorance, subscribe to bigoted stereotypes, attack intellectualism and rage against non-existent threats to your way of life, like such an intellectual. What a fantasy world you live in.

You sound like an atheist website. Ironic that you use the word "parroting."

It is a strawman, because you cannot possibly know all atheists.

Do you have an example which can prove me wrong?

More than a few.

Scott Atran.
Pascal Boyer.
Daniel Dennett.
Emile Durkheim.
Stewart Guthrie.

All of them equivocate on the meaning of Objective. They generally believe morality is due to evolution. Don't hide the fact that you are using a private definition of objective. Why the dishonesty?

Again, I am not an atheist.

And again, I have not called you one.

I simply notice you can't stop attacking them and dehumanizing them.

But when you rant and insult, it's ok. Well, while you may worship yourself, I don't worship you. You are just another confused moron who thinks his naive ideas makes him smart and superior. They don't. Secular humanism is for technologically protected, low self-esteem idiots.

You should lay off the blood of Christ, it's making you even more foolish.

I knew what you thought of the blood of Christ before your secular humanist facade came down. I am not ashamed of it as it is my salvation and power. Trust me, while an intelligent person may disagree with my position, the one looking foolish here is you.

Lol, so you dehumanize only the unintelligent Christians?

No, only bigoted ones.

Hope you have your get to dehumanize for free card. What hypocrites you guys are.

This is not a theist site.

The religion board is. Why aren't you on a secular humanist forum? Cause you can't preen about your superiority there.

There is no need to prove bigotry wrong as it is not based in reality, and reality proves it wrong by simply being.

Illogicspeak = I can't prove my argument right but I don't have to because my argument is right!

You have the burden of proof. You claimed ALL ATHEISTS believe something. Now prove it. Or stop lying.

All atheists believe there is no God.

How about when you call someone stupid? Or bigoted? or a liar? Or ignorant? Let me guess, when you do it, it isn't dh. Right?

1. I only called you stupid after you began throwing personal insults at me. At that point, you opened the door.

And all your secular humanist education, and knowledge and logic went out the door? Hypocrite.

2. You are a bigot. Stop being a bigot and I'll stop calling you out for it.

You are welcome to "call out" as much as you like. You calling me a bigot is not the same thing as me being a bigot. Non-the-less, I don't care about your opinion of me. I care for facts. You seem to have very few.

3. You are a liar. You claimed "ALL ATHEISTS BELIEVE X", which you cannot possibly know, and cannot prove, therefore it is a falsehood based on you bigoted and ignorant perception. You lied, based on your ignorance. You're a liar.

And you are an idiot. When X = do not believe in God, is it true?

5. I am not dehumanizing you, I am pointing out how you have dehumanized yourself through your own hypocrisy.

lol, If that gets you to live with your hypocrisy, knock yourself out.

6. I have not targeted "all" Christians, just a single, closed-minded little bigot.

Insulting many, wrong. Insulting one, good. I'll let you wrestle with your conscience. I really don't care.

All atheists believe there is no God. What stereotype did that form? lol. Stupid outraged people are so much fun!

Except that's not what you claimed before.

I didn't say it was what I claimed before. Pay attention. You claimed that when I made a blanket claim like "all atheist belief X" I was forming a stereotype. So here is my question. All atheists believe there is no God. What stereotype did that form?

You claimed all atheists believe in subjective morality.

Again, can you find an atheist who doesn't believe it? Or should we take it on faith when you say so?

I can find plenty of non-theists who aren't atheist, but atheism BY DEFINITION means a disbelief in god.

Ah, you finally found a functioning brain cell!

Atheism BY DEFINITION does not mean a belief in subjective morality.

I was not defining atheism einstein.

Secular humanism is nothing but self worship.

You sir, worship an idiot.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 1:02:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 10:32:46 AM, The_Immortal_Emris wrote:
It is not my opinion or wish to dehumanize atheists, but I wonder why you think it is wrong or a bad thing. Aren't the majority religious?

And here we can see the hypocrisy on even greater display.

It is morally corrupt to dehumanize people to secular humanists, because we view all people as equal. It might be easy for a false Christian to take shelter in their "majority", (denial is more like it), in order to devalue other human beings, but humanists do not subscribe to the pettiness false Christians adhere to.

Morally corrupt based on your own morality? What makes your own morality objectively better than the morality of a rapist (You can feign shock now *rolls eyes*) or a cannibalistic tribe (You brought the issue of dehumanization...)?

Again you dehumanize by likening an aversion to religious dogma with rape.

How very jesus-like. You shame his memory.

It's not MY morality which I base this off of, its OUR morality, as human beings, established by thousands of years of societal structure, and examination of biological and emotional imperatives.

Sorry bud, not in the mood for red herring and ad hominem.

1- So it is an appeal to popularity. Thank god the Nazis didn't win.
2- What does examining biology have to do with objective morality? Ever heard of the is-ought fallacy? What if slavery evo-morals spread among a population?
3- By emotional you mean not logical? An opinion? That is the opposite of objectivity.

And some people don't view all people as equal.

Clearly you are one of them.

1- My position is irrelevant.
2- How does that make them any less moral than you?

Some materialists (nietzsche for instance) made arguments that the values you are promoting are irrational.

Some Christians, such as Torquemada murdered over 10,000 people. Where is your objective morality now? Because clearly that one example invalidates your entire religion.

You misinterpreted my intent. I am not using them as a bad example, I am using them as a good example as they use logic rather than emotion to justify their position (even though I disagree with them).

No Reason = No Reasoning. Which necessarily means that your position is illogical and based on emotion.

The word "ignorance" seems to be in synonym with "opposing opinion", interesting.

Only if the opposing opinion is based on ignorance.

Nope, in general.

Such staggering wit on display again.

Already read two (Hitchen's and Sam's). Might give the other books a read though.

I don't believe that for an instant. If you were capable of reading these books, you would have a grasp of what humanists believe.

And they believe in irrational junk.

...They literally believe in rationality and evidence based observation.

Direct from the source, you think rationality and evidence is "irrational junk", but your personal fairy tail is 100 percent truthiness.

Lol, if you wanna debate about one of them Humanism pseudo-ideologies then I am game.

Prove to me how morality can be objective without a God, and then I will take it seriously.

Prove to me god exists in order to prove objective morality exists. Otherwise, the existence of objective morality without good is proof enough that god is not needed for objective morality to exist.

The burden of proof is on you.

We already both agree objective morality exists, and we can demonstrate it. Sadly, you cannot demonstrate the existence of your god, therefore you have the BOP.

Check mate.

Smh, shifting the burden of proof. However, it is easy for me, so I shall entertain:

1a- God is the only explanation for objective morality.
1b- If morality is objective then God exists.
2- Morality is objective.
C: Therefore, God exists.

There you go.
It is hilarious since you cannot prove that objective morality exists. That you agree on it based on emotion is no enough, you need to add logic.
You also have the burden of rebuttal to explain why you believe God does not exist (If God exist then we should expect a certain type of evidence which doesn't exist).