Total Posts:74|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

bored of atheism thumpers???

graceofgod
Posts: 5,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2016 5:01:04 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
Is anyone else bored of these atheism thumpers that spend all day every day trying to convince people of faith they are stupid or delusional, while ignoring any argument against their atheism nd little or no knowledge of what they have decided is wrong...
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2016 5:24:31 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/7/2016 5:01:04 PM, graceofgod wrote:
Is anyone else bored of these atheism thumpers that spend all day every day trying to convince people of faith they are stupid or delusional, while ignoring any argument against their atheism nd little or no knowledge of what they have decided is wrong...

Yes.
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2016 7:39:09 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/7/2016 5:01:04 PM, graceofgod wrote:
Is anyone else bored of these atheism thumpers that spend all day every day trying to convince people of faith they are stupid or delusional, while ignoring any argument against their atheism nd little or no knowledge of what they have decided is wrong...

Might I suggest that you don't read them?
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2016 7:45:11 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/7/2016 5:01:04 PM, graceofgod wrote:
Is anyone else bored of these atheism thumpers that spend all day every day trying to convince people of faith they are stupid or delusional, while ignoring any argument against their atheism and little or no knowledge of what they have decided is wrong...

Would you like to see less nontheistic critique of religion here, GoG, or none?

And what would you like to see instead?
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,070
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2016 8:31:13 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/7/2016 5:01:04 PM, graceofgod wrote:
Is anyone else bored of these atheism thumpers that spend all day every day trying to convince people of faith they are stupid or delusional, while ignoring any argument against their atheism nd little or no knowledge of what they have decided is wrong...

Yes. At the same time, you can make your own forums and define things that you think would be better to focus on at the beginning

Skepticism, questioning, alternate perspectives, and personal criticism are great.

Here is what is not....

1. Intentionally describing a religion (or lack of) in a derogatory manner.
2. Using an explanation of the nature "science has disproved this" without taking the time to politely explain the scientific study in detail, and how it relates.
3. Bombing a study forum explicitly by repeatedly claiming the entire religion to be false, or useless. Once or twice is acceptable if you feel its relevant to the discussion. The line is drawn when you become a detriment to learning so again if you can tie it into something productive that's great. Disproving religion is not productive to religious study
4. Quoting scripture out of context intentionally
5. Blatantly claiming people are religious because they are: afraid, uneducated, gullible, brainwashed, illogical, not studying their religion, sheeple, accepting the good rejecting the bad, anything really. Everyone has their own reasons. You can question them within reason, but its downright strange to think you understand why they are religious better then they do. Do not purposefully make people uncomfortable with their religious standing
6. Blatantly claiming that atheists lack or have more of ANYTHING.

7. And on the seventh note I rest. Insert your own.....
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2016 9:16:59 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
What? As of this post there are four threads on the first page started by atheists, as far as I can tell. And they're just being critical of different aspects of religion. The rest of the threads are either attacking atheists or religious discussions. Proselytizing is a far bigger issue in this forum than whatever atheism problem you're imagining.
graceofgod
Posts: 5,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2016 6:42:59 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/7/2016 7:45:11 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/7/2016 5:01:04 PM, graceofgod wrote:
Is anyone else bored of these atheism thumpers that spend all day every day trying to convince people of faith they are stupid or delusional, while ignoring any argument against their atheism and little or no knowledge of what they have decided is wrong...

Would you like to see less nontheistic critique of religion here, GoG, or none?

And what would you like to see instead?

I don't mind the atheists at all to be honest but when they go around forcing their beliefs down the throats of others I think it is wrong, if they don't want to believe fine that's their decision but they should leave believers alone.
graceofgod
Posts: 5,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2016 6:44:12 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/7/2016 9:16:59 PM, Burzmali wrote:
What? As of this post there are four threads on the first page started by atheists, as far as I can tell. And they're just being critical of different aspects of religion. The rest of the threads are either attacking atheists or religious discussions. Proselytizing is a far bigger issue in this forum than whatever atheism problem you're imagining.

i disagree I think atheism is pushed much more and is highlighted in every tv programme
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2016 7:05:32 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/8/2016 6:42:59 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 4/7/2016 7:45:11 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/7/2016 5:01:04 PM, graceofgod wrote:
Is anyone else bored of these atheism thumpers that spend all day every day trying to convince people of faith they are stupid or delusional, while ignoring any argument against their atheism and little or no knowledge of what they have decided is wrong...
Would you like to see less nontheistic critique of religion here, GoG, or none?
And what would you like to see instead?
I don't mind the atheists at all to be honest but when they go around forcing their beliefs down the throats of others I think it is wrong, if they don't want to believe fine that's their decision but they should leave believers alone.

Two common challenges from atheism to theism are epistemological (i.e. what is knowledge and truth, and does religion meet reasonable standards?) and moral (i.e. is it benign or harmful to teach religious faith, and is it ethical to use religious dogma to inform custom and law?)

You seem to argue that no challenge is legitimate, GoG, so do you object to both of those challenges?

Are you therefore saying you believe that:
I) religion is epistemologically beyond challenge, so the truth of its beliefs can and should never be criticised?
II) all religion is moral, so every belief is benign? Or
III) religion is amoral -- as engineering, science or math is often viewed -- so the morality of its doctrine should not ever arise?

Please note that in all cases, I'm not speaking of your particular faith, nor your particular interpretation of faith, but of religion worldwide. So I'm not interested in special pleading or exceptionalism. If atheists shouldn't contest religion at all, then let's talk about all religion, and not just your preferred version of it.

It seems to me that a great deal of the world's religions (and especially their clergy and legislators of faith) claim moral and intellectual authority over mankind. What do you believe are the risks -- if any -- of permitting those claims to go unchallenged and untested?

Are you arguing that nobody should contest any religious faith ever, or that others can, but atheists shouldn't?

And finally, do you believe one can have justice and compassion in a pluralist society where faith itself is not challenged and contested?
graceofgod
Posts: 5,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2016 7:12:41 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/8/2016 7:05:32 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/8/2016 6:42:59 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 4/7/2016 7:45:11 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/7/2016 5:01:04 PM, graceofgod wrote:
Is anyone else bored of these atheism thumpers that spend all day every day trying to convince people of faith they are stupid or delusional, while ignoring any argument against their atheism and little or no knowledge of what they have decided is wrong...
Would you like to see less nontheistic critique of religion here, GoG, or none?
And what would you like to see instead?
I don't mind the atheists at all to be honest but when they go around forcing their beliefs down the throats of others I think it is wrong, if they don't want to believe fine that's their decision but they should leave believers alone.

Two common challenges from atheism to theism are epistemological (i.e. what is knowledge and truth, and does religion meet reasonable standards?) and moral (i.e. is it benign or harmful to teach religious faith, and is it ethical to use religious dogma to inform custom and law?)

You seem to argue that no challenge is legitimate, GoG, so do you object to both of those challenges?

Are you therefore saying you believe that:
I) religion is epistemologically beyond challenge, so the truth of its beliefs can and should never be criticised?
II) all religion is moral, so every belief is benign? Or
III) religion is amoral -- as engineering, science or math is often viewed -- so the morality of its doctrine should not ever arise?

Please note that in all cases, I'm not speaking of your particular faith, nor your particular interpretation of faith, but of religion worldwide. So I'm not interested in special pleading or exceptionalism. If atheists shouldn't contest religion at all, then let's talk about all religion, and not just your preferred version of it.

It seems to me that a great deal of the world's religions (and especially their clergy and legislators of faith) claim moral and intellectual authority over mankind. What do you believe are the risks -- if any -- of permitting those claims to go unchallenged and untested?

Are you arguing that nobody should contest any religious faith ever, or that others can, but atheists shouldn't?

And finally, do you believe one can have justice and compassion in a pluralist society where faith itself is not challenged and contested?

on the contrary atheists have every right to not believe I have already said that but what right do they have to force their opinion on those who choose to believe, what right do they have to ridicule those who choose to believe.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2016 7:24:22 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/8/2016 7:12:41 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 4/8/2016 7:05:32 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/8/2016 6:42:59 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 4/7/2016 7:45:11 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/7/2016 5:01:04 PM, graceofgod wrote:
Is anyone else bored of these atheism thumpers that spend all day every day trying to convince people of faith they are stupid or delusional, while ignoring any argument against their atheism and little or no knowledge of what they have decided is wrong...
Would you like to see less nontheistic critique of religion here, GoG, or none?
And what would you like to see instead?
I don't mind the atheists at all to be honest but when they go around forcing their beliefs down the throats of others I think it is wrong, if they don't want to believe fine that's their decision but they should leave believers alone.

Two common challenges from atheism to theism are epistemological (i.e. what is knowledge and truth, and does religion meet reasonable standards?) and moral (i.e. is it benign or harmful to teach religious faith, and is it ethical to use religious dogma to inform custom and law?)

You seem to argue that no challenge is legitimate, GoG, so do you object to both of those challenges?

Are you therefore saying you believe that:
I) religion is epistemologically beyond challenge, so the truth of its beliefs can and should never be criticised?
II) all religion is moral, so every belief is benign? Or
III) religion is amoral -- as engineering, science or math is often viewed -- so the morality of its doctrine should not ever arise?

Please note that in all cases, I'm not speaking of your particular faith, nor your particular interpretation of faith, but of religion worldwide. So I'm not interested in special pleading or exceptionalism. If atheists shouldn't contest religion at all, then let's talk about all religion, and not just your preferred version of it.

It seems to me that a great deal of the world's religions (and especially their clergy and legislators of faith) claim moral and intellectual authority over mankind. What do you believe are the risks -- if any -- of permitting those claims to go unchallenged and untested?

Are you arguing that nobody should contest any religious faith ever, or that others can, but atheists shouldn't?

And finally, do you believe one can have justice and compassion in a pluralist society where faith itself is not challenged and contested?

on the contrary atheists have every right to not believe I have already said that
Yes, you said that from the outset. I acknowledge and accept that.

Now, what I've asked you is whether you hold that the knowledge, truth and morality of religious teaching should not be criticised by:
1) anyone; or
2) only atheists, though others can criticise.

And then I asked you whether you believe there can be compassion and justice in a pluralistic (i.e. multifaith) society if it is not permitted that religion is criticised.

Are you willing to answer those questions, GoG, or will you continue to evade them by reasserting an earlier point?
graceofgod
Posts: 5,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2016 7:29:16 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/8/2016 7:24:22 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/8/2016 7:12:41 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 4/8/2016 7:05:32 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/8/2016 6:42:59 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 4/7/2016 7:45:11 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/7/2016 5:01:04 PM, graceofgod wrote:
Is anyone else bored of these atheism thumpers that spend all day every day trying to convince people of faith they are stupid or delusional, while ignoring any argument against their atheism and little or no knowledge of what they have decided is wrong...
Would you like to see less nontheistic critique of religion here, GoG, or none?
And what would you like to see instead?
I don't mind the atheists at all to be honest but when they go around forcing their beliefs down the throats of others I think it is wrong, if they don't want to believe fine that's their decision but they should leave believers alone.

Two common challenges from atheism to theism are epistemological (i.e. what is knowledge and truth, and does religion meet reasonable standards?) and moral (i.e. is it benign or harmful to teach religious faith, and is it ethical to use religious dogma to inform custom and law?)

You seem to argue that no challenge is legitimate, GoG, so do you object to both of those challenges?

Are you therefore saying you believe that:
I) religion is epistemologically beyond challenge, so the truth of its beliefs can and should never be criticised?
II) all religion is moral, so every belief is benign? Or
III) religion is amoral -- as engineering, science or math is often viewed -- so the morality of its doctrine should not ever arise?

Please note that in all cases, I'm not speaking of your particular faith, nor your particular interpretation of faith, but of religion worldwide. So I'm not interested in special pleading or exceptionalism. If atheists shouldn't contest religion at all, then let's talk about all religion, and not just your preferred version of it.

It seems to me that a great deal of the world's religions (and especially their clergy and legislators of faith) claim moral and intellectual authority over mankind. What do you believe are the risks -- if any -- of permitting those claims to go unchallenged and untested?

Are you arguing that nobody should contest any religious faith ever, or that others can, but atheists shouldn't?

And finally, do you believe one can have justice and compassion in a pluralist society where faith itself is not challenged and contested?

on the contrary atheists have every right to not believe I have already said that
Yes, you said that from the outset. I acknowledge and accept that.

Now, what I've asked you is whether you hold that the knowledge, truth and morality of religious teaching should not be criticised by:
1) anyone; or
2) only atheists, though others can criticise.

And then I asked you whether you believe there can be compassion and justice in a pluralistic (i.e. multifaith) society if it is not permitted that religion is criticised.

Are you willing to answer those questions, GoG, or will you continue to evade them by reasserting an earlier point?

I have answered your points, I don't care on what point they wish to criticise believers, just whether it is right to bother those who choose to believe and is they should mock those who believe, why can't atheist just accept not everyone believes what they believe, everyone should have the right to believe what they want to believe and not be criticised for it, what happened to equality??
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2016 7:33:33 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/8/2016 7:29:16 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 4/8/2016 7:24:22 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/8/2016 7:12:41 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 4/8/2016 7:05:32 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/8/2016 6:42:59 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 4/7/2016 7:45:11 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/7/2016 5:01:04 PM, graceofgod wrote:
Is anyone else bored of these atheism thumpers that spend all day every day trying to convince people of faith they are stupid or delusional, while ignoring any argument against their atheism and little or no knowledge of what they have decided is wrong...
Would you like to see less nontheistic critique of religion here, GoG, or none?
And what would you like to see instead?
I don't mind the atheists at all to be honest but when they go around forcing their beliefs down the throats of others I think it is wrong, if they don't want to believe fine that's their decision but they should leave believers alone.

Two common challenges from atheism to theism are epistemological (i.e. what is knowledge and truth, and does religion meet reasonable standards?) and moral (i.e. is it benign or harmful to teach religious faith, and is it ethical to use religious dogma to inform custom and law?)

You seem to argue that no challenge is legitimate, GoG, so do you object to both of those challenges?

Are you therefore saying you believe that:
I) religion is epistemologically beyond challenge, so the truth of its beliefs can and should never be criticised?
II) all religion is moral, so every belief is benign? Or
III) religion is amoral -- as engineering, science or math is often viewed -- so the morality of its doctrine should not ever arise?

Please note that in all cases, I'm not speaking of your particular faith, nor your particular interpretation of faith, but of religion worldwide. So I'm not interested in special pleading or exceptionalism. If atheists shouldn't contest religion at all, then let's talk about all religion, and not just your preferred version of it.

It seems to me that a great deal of the world's religions (and especially their clergy and legislators of faith) claim moral and intellectual authority over mankind. What do you believe are the risks -- if any -- of permitting those claims to go unchallenged and untested?

Are you arguing that nobody should contest any religious faith ever, or that others can, but atheists shouldn't?

And finally, do you believe one can have justice and compassion in a pluralist society where faith itself is not challenged and contested?

on the contrary atheists have every right to not believe I have already said that
Yes, you said that from the outset. I acknowledge and accept that.

Now, what I've asked you is whether you hold that the knowledge, truth and morality of religious teaching should not be criticised by:
1) anyone; or
2) only atheists, though others can criticise.

And then I asked you whether you believe there can be compassion and justice in a pluralistic (i.e. multifaith) society if it is not permitted that religion is criticised.

Are you willing to answer those questions, GoG, or will you continue to evade them by reasserting an earlier point?

I have answered your points,
Please quote and highlight in bold where you have answered:

1) Who (if anyone) is allowed to criticise the knowledge, truth and morality of religious teaching; and
2) Whether you believe justice is feasible in a multifaith society in which religion cannot be criticised.

You are welcome to raise other questions once you have answered these. Or feel free to admit that you haven't answered them, and are afraid to do so, and then, having failed to engage this conversation in good faith, seek my consent to raise other points instead.

But to continue to evade and say you've answered is dishonest.
graceofgod
Posts: 5,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2016 7:38:09 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/8/2016 7:33:33 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/8/2016 7:29:16 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 4/8/2016 7:24:22 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/8/2016 7:12:41 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 4/8/2016 7:05:32 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/8/2016 6:42:59 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 4/7/2016 7:45:11 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/7/2016 5:01:04 PM, graceofgod wrote:
Is anyone else bored of these atheism thumpers that spend all day every day trying to convince people of faith they are stupid or delusional, while ignoring any argument against their atheism and little or no knowledge of what they have decided is wrong...
Would you like to see less nontheistic critique of religion here, GoG, or none?
And what would you like to see instead?
I don't mind the atheists at all to be honest but when they go around forcing their beliefs down the throats of others I think it is wrong, if they don't want to believe fine that's their decision but they should leave believers alone.

Two common challenges from atheism to theism are epistemological (i.e. what is knowledge and truth, and does religion meet reasonable standards?) and moral (i.e. is it benign or harmful to teach religious faith, and is it ethical to use religious dogma to inform custom and law?)

You seem to argue that no challenge is legitimate, GoG, so do you object to both of those challenges?

Are you therefore saying you believe that:
I) religion is epistemologically beyond challenge, so the truth of its beliefs can and should never be criticised?
II) all religion is moral, so every belief is benign? Or
III) religion is amoral -- as engineering, science or math is often viewed -- so the morality of its doctrine should not ever arise?

Please note that in all cases, I'm not speaking of your particular faith, nor your particular interpretation of faith, but of religion worldwide. So I'm not interested in special pleading or exceptionalism. If atheists shouldn't contest religion at all, then let's talk about all religion, and not just your preferred version of it.

It seems to me that a great deal of the world's religions (and especially their clergy and legislators of faith) claim moral and intellectual authority over mankind. What do you believe are the risks -- if any -- of permitting those claims to go unchallenged and untested?

Are you arguing that nobody should contest any religious faith ever, or that others can, but atheists shouldn't?

And finally, do you believe one can have justice and compassion in a pluralist society where faith itself is not challenged and contested?

on the contrary atheists have every right to not believe I have already said that
Yes, you said that from the outset. I acknowledge and accept that.

Now, what I've asked you is whether you hold that the knowledge, truth and morality of religious teaching should not be criticised by:
1) anyone; or
2) only atheists, though others can criticise.

And then I asked you whether you believe there can be compassion and justice in a pluralistic (i.e. multifaith) society if it is not permitted that religion is criticised.

Are you willing to answer those questions, GoG, or will you continue to evade them by reasserting an earlier point?

I have answered your points,
Please quote and highlight in bold where you have answered:

1) Who (if anyone) is allowed to criticise the knowledge, truth and morality of religious teaching; and
2) Whether you believe justice is feasible in a multifaith society in which religion cannot be criticised.

You are welcome to raise other questions once you have answered these. Or feel free to admit that you haven't answered them, and are afraid to do so, and then, having failed to engage this conversation in good faith, seek my consent to raise other points instead.

But to continue to evade and say you've answered is dishonest.

I have answered you just don't agree with equality for some reason, clearly you think that a certain group called atheists should be allowed to bully and try to intimidate by name calling and abuse those who choose to believe for no better reason than the fact they choose not to believe.
You appear to condone bullying and inequality behind a thin veil of the right to question what someone decides to believe, would you condone homosexuals being called queers and brain dead for thinking anal sex is ok and acceptable or do yu think that heterosexuals should have the right to bully and call gays based on their belief that homosexuality is wrong??
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2016 7:47:21 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/8/2016 7:38:09 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 4/8/2016 7:33:33 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/8/2016 7:29:16 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 4/8/2016 7:24:22 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/8/2016 7:12:41 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 4/8/2016 7:05:32 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/8/2016 6:42:59 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 4/7/2016 7:45:11 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/7/2016 5:01:04 PM, graceofgod wrote:
Is anyone else bored of these atheism thumpers that spend all day every day trying to convince people of faith they are stupid or delusional, while ignoring any argument against their atheism and little or no knowledge of what they have decided is wrong...
Would you like to see less nontheistic critique of religion here, GoG, or none?
And what would you like to see instead?
I don't mind the atheists at all to be honest but when they go around forcing their beliefs down the throats of others I think it is wrong, if they don't want to believe fine that's their decision but they should leave believers alone.

Two common challenges from atheism to theism are epistemological (i.e. what is knowledge and truth, and does religion meet reasonable standards?) and moral (i.e. is it benign or harmful to teach religious faith, and is it ethical to use religious dogma to inform custom and law?)

You seem to argue that no challenge is legitimate, GoG, so do you object to both of those challenges?

Are you therefore saying you believe that:
I) religion is epistemologically beyond challenge, so the truth of its beliefs can and should never be criticised?
II) all religion is moral, so every belief is benign? Or
III) religion is amoral -- as engineering, science or math is often viewed -- so the morality of its doctrine should not ever arise?

Please note that in all cases, I'm not speaking of your particular faith, nor your particular interpretation of faith, but of religion worldwide. So I'm not interested in special pleading or exceptionalism. If atheists shouldn't contest religion at all, then let's talk about all religion, and not just your preferred version of it.

It seems to me that a great deal of the world's religions (and especially their clergy and legislators of faith) claim moral and intellectual authority over mankind. What do you believe are the risks -- if any -- of permitting those claims to go unchallenged and untested?

Are you arguing that nobody should contest any religious faith ever, or that others can, but atheists shouldn't?

And finally, do you believe one can have justice and compassion in a pluralist society where faith itself is not challenged and contested?

on the contrary atheists have every right to not believe I have already said that
Yes, you said that from the outset. I acknowledge and accept that.

Now, what I've asked you is whether you hold that the knowledge, truth and morality of religious teaching should not be criticised by:
1) anyone; or
2) only atheists, though others can criticise.

And then I asked you whether you believe there can be compassion and justice in a pluralistic (i.e. multifaith) society if it is not permitted that religion is criticised.

Are you willing to answer those questions, GoG, or will you continue to evade them by reasserting an earlier point?

I have answered your points,
Please quote and highlight in bold where you have answered:

1) Who (if anyone) is allowed to criticise the knowledge, truth and morality of religious teaching; and
2) Whether you believe justice is feasible in a multifaith society in which religion cannot be criticised.

You are welcome to raise other questions once you have answered these. Or feel free to admit that you haven't answered them, and are afraid to do so, and then, having failed to engage this conversation in good faith, seek my consent to raise other points instead.

But to continue to evade and say you've answered is dishonest.

I have answered
You are unable to quote and highlight where you have answered, GoG, and have now resorted to ad-hominem. So essentially you've abandoned your intellectual position as indefensible, and are now just occupying space, giving vent to sanctimony.

Let me conjecture the following:
1) You dislike having your religion criticised (understandable, since it's sacred to you);
2) You could appeal to 'live and let live' if you could demonstrate that it all religions are benign -- yet you have avoided saying so, because you don't believe that yourself;
3) You cannot say why it is just or compassionate to exempt religion from criticism in general, and I don't think that's what you really want to do, since you'd probably want the right to criticise faiths you find offensive yourself;
4) You cannot claim therefore that all atheists are criticising faith unjustly or cruelly;
5) Really, you don't want to protect all religions from criticism -- just yours.

If so, then this is a vain, unjust, self-interested position you're promoting under cover of a live and let live principle that you and your faith don't really uphold.
graceofgod
Posts: 5,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2016 7:49:54 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/8/2016 7:47:21 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/8/2016 7:38:09 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 4/8/2016 7:33:33 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/8/2016 7:29:16 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 4/8/2016 7:24:22 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/8/2016 7:12:41 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 4/8/2016 7:05:32 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/8/2016 6:42:59 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 4/7/2016 7:45:11 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/7/2016 5:01:04 PM, graceofgod wrote:
Is anyone else bored of these atheism thumpers that spend all day every day trying to convince people of faith they are stupid or delusional, while ignoring any argument against their atheism and little or no knowledge of what they have decided is wrong...
Would you like to see less nontheistic critique of religion here, GoG, or none?
And what would you like to see instead?
I don't mind the atheists at all to be honest but when they go around forcing their beliefs down the throats of others I think it is wrong, if they don't want to believe fine that's their decision but they should leave believers alone.

Two common challenges from atheism to theism are epistemological (i.e. what is knowledge and truth, and does religion meet reasonable standards?) and moral (i.e. is it benign or harmful to teach religious faith, and is it ethical to use religious dogma to inform custom and law?)

You seem to argue that no challenge is legitimate, GoG, so do you object to both of those challenges?

Are you therefore saying you believe that:
I) religion is epistemologically beyond challenge, so the truth of its beliefs can and should never be criticised?
II) all religion is moral, so every belief is benign? Or
III) religion is amoral -- as engineering, science or math is often viewed -- so the morality of its doctrine should not ever arise?

Please note that in all cases, I'm not speaking of your particular faith, nor your particular interpretation of faith, but of religion worldwide. So I'm not interested in special pleading or exceptionalism. If atheists shouldn't contest religion at all, then let's talk about all religion, and not just your preferred version of it.

It seems to me that a great deal of the world's religions (and especially their clergy and legislators of faith) claim moral and intellectual authority over mankind. What do you believe are the risks -- if any -- of permitting those claims to go unchallenged and untested?

Are you arguing that nobody should contest any religious faith ever, or that others can, but atheists shouldn't?

And finally, do you believe one can have justice and compassion in a pluralist society where faith itself is not challenged and contested?

on the contrary atheists have every right to not believe I have already said that
Yes, you said that from the outset. I acknowledge and accept that.

Now, what I've asked you is whether you hold that the knowledge, truth and morality of religious teaching should not be criticised by:
1) anyone; or
2) only atheists, though others can criticise.

And then I asked you whether you believe there can be compassion and justice in a pluralistic (i.e. multifaith) society if it is not permitted that religion is criticised.

Are you willing to answer those questions, GoG, or will you continue to evade them by reasserting an earlier point?

I have answered your points,
Please quote and highlight in bold where you have answered:

1) Who (if anyone) is allowed to criticise the knowledge, truth and morality of religious teaching; and
2) Whether you believe justice is feasible in a multifaith society in which religion cannot be criticised.

You are welcome to raise other questions once you have answered these. Or feel free to admit that you haven't answered them, and are afraid to do so, and then, having failed to engage this conversation in good faith, seek my consent to raise other points instead.

But to continue to evade and say you've answered is dishonest.

I have answered
You are unable to quote and highlight where you have answered, GoG, and have now resorted to ad-hominem. So essentially you've abandoned your intellectual position as indefensible, and are now just occupying space, giving vent to sanctimony.

Let me conjecture the following:
1) You dislike having your religion criticised (understandable, since it's sacred to you);
2) You could appeal to 'live and let live' if you could demonstrate that it all religions are benign -- yet you have avoided saying so, because you don't believe that yourself;
3) You cannot say why it is just or compassionate to exempt religion from criticism in general, and I don't think that's what you really want to do, since you'd probably want the right to criticise faiths you find offensive yourself;
4) You cannot claim therefore that all atheists are criticising faith unjustly or cruelly;
5) Really, you don't want to protect all religions from criticism -- just yours.

If so, then this is a vain, unjust, self-interested position you're promoting under cover of a live and let live principle that you and your faith don't really uphold.

oh and so the worm turns, is it right for heterosexuals to bully and name call and to claim that gays must be stupid to do what they do based on what heterosexuals believe is wrong, even though many proven facts show the clear dangerous of homosexuality???
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2016 8:03:38 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/8/2016 7:49:54 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 4/8/2016 7:47:21 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
Let me conjecture the following:
1) You dislike having your religion criticised (understandable, since it's sacred to you);
2) You could appeal to 'live and let live' if you could demonstrate that it all religions are benign -- yet you have avoided saying so, because you don't believe that yourself;
3) You cannot say why it is just or compassionate to exempt religion from criticism in general, and I don't think that's what you really want to do, since you'd probably want the right to criticise faiths you find offensive yourself;
4) You cannot claim therefore that all atheists are criticising faith unjustly or cruelly;
5) Really, you don't want to protect all religions from criticism -- just yours.

If so, then this is a vain, unjust, self-interested position you're promoting under cover of a live and let live principle that you and your faith don't really uphold.

is it right for heterosexuals to bully and name call and to claim that gays must be stupid to do what they do based on what heterosexuals believe is wrong, even though many proven facts show the clear dangerous of homosexuality???

I understand that you have neither denied nor refuted any of my conjectures above, but in seeking to excuse it, you have also acknowledged it.

So let's be clear on what you want.

1) You would like your faith to have the same 'special treatment' as being gay -- that is, you would like people of faith to be treated as though they are vulnerable, struggling for identity, and routinely suffering cruelty and injustice in consequence of their identity; and
2) You would like to exclude people of other faiths from vulnerable status.

It has to be both 1) and 2) GoG. Else if you say all faiths should be excluded from criticism on grounds of special vulnerability then you have to also defend why it's both compassionate and just to exempt religion from criticism, no matter what it teaches.

Okay, so you've admitted how special and precious your beliefs are, and how unimportant are everyone else's.

Now, please explain why your faith should not be criticised on grounds of truth, knowledge or morality while other faiths should.

The floor is yours.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2016 8:04:42 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/8/2016 7:12:41 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 4/8/2016 7:05:32 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/8/2016 6:42:59 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 4/7/2016 7:45:11 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/7/2016 5:01:04 PM, graceofgod wrote:
Is anyone else bored of these atheism thumpers that spend all day every day trying to convince people of faith they are stupid or delusional, while ignoring any argument against their atheism and little or no knowledge of what they have decided is wrong...
Would you like to see less nontheistic critique of religion here, GoG, or none?
And what would you like to see instead?
I don't mind the atheists at all to be honest but when they go around forcing their beliefs down the throats of others I think it is wrong, if they don't want to believe fine that's their decision but they should leave believers alone.

Two common challenges from atheism to theism are epistemological (i.e. what is knowledge and truth, and does religion meet reasonable standards?) and moral (i.e. is it benign or harmful to teach religious faith, and is it ethical to use religious dogma to inform custom and law?)

You seem to argue that no challenge is legitimate, GoG, so do you object to both of those challenges?

Are you therefore saying you believe that:
I) religion is epistemologically beyond challenge, so the truth of its beliefs can and should never be criticised?
II) all religion is moral, so every belief is benign? Or
III) religion is amoral -- as engineering, science or math is often viewed -- so the morality of its doctrine should not ever arise?

Please note that in all cases, I'm not speaking of your particular faith, nor your particular interpretation of faith, but of religion worldwide. So I'm not interested in special pleading or exceptionalism. If atheists shouldn't contest religion at all, then let's talk about all religion, and not just your preferred version of it.

It seems to me that a great deal of the world's religions (and especially their clergy and legislators of faith) claim moral and intellectual authority over mankind. What do you believe are the risks -- if any -- of permitting those claims to go unchallenged and untested?

Are you arguing that nobody should contest any religious faith ever, or that others can, but atheists shouldn't?

And finally, do you believe one can have justice and compassion in a pluralist society where faith itself is not challenged and contested?

on the contrary atheists have every right to not believe I have already said that but what right do they have to force their opinion on those who choose to believe, what right do they have to ridicule those who choose to believe.

Please give us an example of atheists trying to force their opinions on anyone?
graceofgod
Posts: 5,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2016 8:44:07 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/8/2016 8:03:38 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/8/2016 7:49:54 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 4/8/2016 7:47:21 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
Let me conjecture the following:
1) You dislike having your religion criticised (understandable, since it's sacred to you);
2) You could appeal to 'live and let live' if you could demonstrate that it all religions are benign -- yet you have avoided saying so, because you don't believe that yourself;
3) You cannot say why it is just or compassionate to exempt religion from criticism in general, and I don't think that's what you really want to do, since you'd probably want the right to criticise faiths you find offensive yourself;
4) You cannot claim therefore that all atheists are criticising faith unjustly or cruelly;
5) Really, you don't want to protect all religions from criticism -- just yours.

If so, then this is a vain, unjust, self-interested position you're promoting under cover of a live and let live principle that you and your faith don't really uphold.

is it right for heterosexuals to bully and name call and to claim that gays must be stupid to do what they do based on what heterosexuals believe is wrong, even though many proven facts show the clear dangerous of homosexuality???

I understand that you have neither denied nor refuted any of my conjectures above, but in seeking to excuse it, you have also acknowledged it.

So let's be clear on what you want.

1) You would like your faith to have the same 'special treatment' as being gay -- that is, you would like people of faith to be treated as though they are vulnerable, struggling for identity, and routinely suffering cruelty and injustice in consequence of their identity; and
2) You would like to exclude people of other faiths from vulnerable status.

It has to be both 1) and 2) GoG. Else if you say all faiths should be excluded from criticism on grounds of special vulnerability then you have to also defend why it's both compassionate and just to exempt religion from criticism, no matter what it teaches.

Okay, so you've admitted how special and precious your beliefs are, and how unimportant are everyone else's.

Now, please explain why your faith should not be criticised on grounds of truth, knowledge or morality while other faiths should.

The floor is yours.

ha ha ha so while you are happy that based on alleged logic or knowledge of non believers it is fine to slate believers, to ridicule and call them for making the choice to believe but for some reason you are not prepared to say it is fine for heterosexuals to belittle, ridicule and name call homosexuals based on any logic or knowledge..

As I thought atheists and it seems homosexuals do not want equality until it suits their needs..lol
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2016 8:55:54 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/8/2016 8:44:07 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 4/8/2016 8:03:38 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/8/2016 7:49:54 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 4/8/2016 7:47:21 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
Let me conjecture the following:
1) You dislike having your religion criticised (understandable, since it's sacred to you);
2) You could appeal to 'live and let live' if you could demonstrate that it all religions are benign -- yet you have avoided saying so, because you don't believe that yourself;
3) You cannot say why it is just or compassionate to exempt religion from criticism in general, and I don't think that's what you really want to do, since you'd probably want the right to criticise faiths you find offensive yourself;
4) You cannot claim therefore that all atheists are criticising faith unjustly or cruelly;
5) Really, you don't want to protect all religions from criticism -- just yours.

If so, then this is a vain, unjust, self-interested position you're promoting under cover of a live and let live principle that you and your faith don't really uphold.

is it right for heterosexuals to bully and name call and to claim that gays must be stupid to do what they do based on what heterosexuals believe is wrong, even though many proven facts show the clear dangerous of homosexuality???

I understand that you have neither denied nor refuted any of my conjectures above, but in seeking to excuse it, you have also acknowledged it.

So let's be clear on what you want.

1) You would like your faith to have the same 'special treatment' as being gay -- that is, you would like people of faith to be treated as though they are vulnerable, struggling for identity, and routinely suffering cruelty and injustice in consequence of their identity; and
2) You would like to exclude people of other faiths from vulnerable status.

It has to be both 1) and 2) GoG. Else if you say all faiths should be excluded from criticism on grounds of special vulnerability then you have to also defend why it's both compassionate and just to exempt religion from criticism, no matter what it teaches.

Okay, so you've admitted how special and precious your beliefs are, and how unimportant are everyone else's.

Now, please explain why your faith should not be criticised on grounds of truth, knowledge or morality while other faiths should.

The floor is yours.

ha ha ha so while you are happy that based on alleged logic or knowledge of non believers it is fine to slate believers, to ridicule and call them for making the choice to believe but for some reason you are not prepared to say it is fine for heterosexuals to belittle, ridicule and name call homosexuals based on any logic or knowledge..

As I thought atheists and it seems homosexuals do not want equality until it suits their needs..lol

This is called a strawman, GoG. It's what people do when they have nothing substantive to argue.

I have not taken a position in this conversation on whether assigning vulnerable minority status to gay people is warranted -- or if so, to what degree or for how long. It's simply not relevant to whether religion in general should be criticised.

However, you have attempted to make the claim that your faith -- a majority faith in the US, often over-represented in legislature and judiciary -- should be accorded vulnerable minority status while no other faith should -- apparently based on some vague argument of equivalence that you didn't explain and haven't defended.

It's not a claim you've been able to argue, so you've stramanned a position for me on gay vulnerability, asserted equivalence without evidence, and shifted the burden of proof from you defending the equivalence you asserted, to me rebutting it when you haven't made the case in the first place.

If nothing else, you're making a great illustration for why the thinking of the religious should be criticised. But please feel free to correct that and:
a) argue the vulnerable minority status of your own faith; while
b) rebutting it for every other faith but your own -- including faiths smaller and less well-understood than yours, who have no representation in legislature or judiciary.

Or else abandon this line as the puffed up rhetoric it appears to be, piled onto the special pleading your whole thread appears to be. :p
graceofgod
Posts: 5,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2016 8:59:23 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/8/2016 8:55:54 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/8/2016 8:44:07 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 4/8/2016 8:03:38 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/8/2016 7:49:54 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 4/8/2016 7:47:21 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
Let me conjecture the following:
1) You dislike having your religion criticised (understandable, since it's sacred to you);
2) You could appeal to 'live and let live' if you could demonstrate that it all religions are benign -- yet you have avoided saying so, because you don't believe that yourself;
3) You cannot say why it is just or compassionate to exempt religion from criticism in general, and I don't think that's what you really want to do, since you'd probably want the right to criticise faiths you find offensive yourself;
4) You cannot claim therefore that all atheists are criticising faith unjustly or cruelly;
5) Really, you don't want to protect all religions from criticism -- just yours.

If so, then this is a vain, unjust, self-interested position you're promoting under cover of a live and let live principle that you and your faith don't really uphold.

is it right for heterosexuals to bully and name call and to claim that gays must be stupid to do what they do based on what heterosexuals believe is wrong, even though many proven facts show the clear dangerous of homosexuality???

I understand that you have neither denied nor refuted any of my conjectures above, but in seeking to excuse it, you have also acknowledged it.

So let's be clear on what you want.

1) You would like your faith to have the same 'special treatment' as being gay -- that is, you would like people of faith to be treated as though they are vulnerable, struggling for identity, and routinely suffering cruelty and injustice in consequence of their identity; and
2) You would like to exclude people of other faiths from vulnerable status.

It has to be both 1) and 2) GoG. Else if you say all faiths should be excluded from criticism on grounds of special vulnerability then you have to also defend why it's both compassionate and just to exempt religion from criticism, no matter what it teaches.

Okay, so you've admitted how special and precious your beliefs are, and how unimportant are everyone else's.

Now, please explain why your faith should not be criticised on grounds of truth, knowledge or morality while other faiths should.

The floor is yours.

ha ha ha so while you are happy that based on alleged logic or knowledge of non believers it is fine to slate believers, to ridicule and call them for making the choice to believe but for some reason you are not prepared to say it is fine for heterosexuals to belittle, ridicule and name call homosexuals based on any logic or knowledge..

As I thought atheists and it seems homosexuals do not want equality until it suits their needs..lol

This is called a strawman, GoG. It's what people do when they have nothing substantive to argue.

I have not taken a position in this conversation on whether assigning vulnerable minority status to gay people is warranted -- or if so, to what degree or for how long. It's simply not relevant to whether religion in general should be criticised.

However, you have attempted to make the claim that your faith -- a majority faith in the US, often over-represented in legislature and judiciary -- should be accorded vulnerable minority status while no other faith should -- apparently based on some vague argument of equivalence that you didn't explain and haven't defended.

It's not a claim you've been able to argue, so you've stramanned a position for me on gay vulnerability, asserted equivalence without evidence, and shifted the burden of proof from you defending the equivalence you asserted, to me rebutting it when you haven't made the case in the first place.

If nothing else, you're making a great illustration for why the thinking of the religious should be criticised. But please feel free to correct that and:
a) argue the vulnerable minority status of your own faith; while
b) rebutting it for every other faith but your own -- including faiths smaller and less well-understood than yours, who have no representation in legislature or judiciary.

Or else abandon this line as the puffed up rhetoric it appears to be, piled onto the special pleading your whole thread appears to be. :p

this is not a strawman at all , it is fact do you or do you not agree that heterosexuals should be able to bully, call, be little and jest at the expense of homosexuals based upon their logic and knowledge and beliefs... ?? it's a simple enough question
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2016 9:33:32 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/8/2016 8:59:23 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 4/8/2016 8:55:54 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/8/2016 8:44:07 PM, graceofgod wrote:
ha ha ha so while you are happy that based on alleged logic or knowledge of non believers it is fine to slate believers, to ridicule and call them for making the choice to believe but for some reason you are not prepared to say it is fine for heterosexuals to belittle, ridicule and name call homosexuals based on any logic or knowledge..

As I thought atheists and it seems homosexuals do not want equality until it suits their needs..lol

This is called a strawman, GoG. It's what people do when they have nothing substantive to argue.

I have not taken a position in this conversation on whether assigning vulnerable minority status to gay people is warranted -- or if so, to what degree or for how long. It's simply not relevant to whether religion in general should be criticised.

However, you have attempted to make the claim that your faith -- a majority faith in the US, often over-represented in legislature and judiciary -- should be accorded vulnerable minority status while no other faith should -- apparently based on some vague argument of equivalence that you didn't explain and haven't defended.

It's not a claim you've been able to argue, so you've stramanned a position for me on gay vulnerability, asserted equivalence without evidence, and shifted the burden of proof from you defending the equivalence you asserted, to me rebutting it when you haven't made the case in the first place.

If nothing else, you're making a great illustration for why the thinking of the religious should be criticised. But please feel free to correct that and:
a) argue the vulnerable minority status of your own faith; while
b) rebutting it for every other faith but your own -- including faiths smaller and less well-understood than yours, who have no representation in legislature or judiciary.

Or else abandon this line as the puffed up rhetoric it appears to be, piled onto the special pleading your whole thread appears to be. :p

this is not a strawman at all , it is fact do you or do you not agree that heterosexuals should be able to bully, call, be little and jest at the expense of homosexuals based upon their logic and knowledge and beliefs... ?? it's a simple enough question

I absolutely do think it legitimate to criticise the thoughts or actions of a group, where such criticism is also accountable for its justice and compassion. That includes homosexuals, atheists and so on. But note that I have said 'criticise' and 'accountable'. Virtually all vilification -- including that perpetrated by the religious on any group they don't like -- is not criticism, is not just or compassionate, and is not accountable for its cruelty and injustice.

You will eventually make the point I'm sure, that some atheistic commentary about the faithful is vilifying, cruel and unjust.

That's true, and I oppose it both in principle and often in deed. However, you've cast a broader net in this thread. Here's the scope you wrote again:
Is anyone else bored of these atheism thumpers that spend all day every day trying to convince people of faith they are stupid or delusional

And again, later:
if they don't want to believe fine that's their decision but they should leave believers alone.

You're not saying that just, compassionate criticism is welcome. In fact, you've argued that any criticism of faith by an atheist should be viewed as an attack by a bully on a vulnerable minority.

Since your faith is hardly a minority in your jurisdiction, and hardly known for its live-and-let-live policies toward other faiths and life choices, I'm wondering whether in this argument you would like your faith to be remembered not only for its millennia of pathological bullying, but also for being whining bullies unable to take constructive criticism?

And since I've responded to your ignorant straw-man in good faith, GoG, let us now return to the questions you haven't answered:
1) Is all criticism of all religion to be forbidden, or just criticism of yours?
2) Do you believe a pluralist society can be just and compassionate if it is forbidden to criticise religion?
graceofgod
Posts: 5,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2016 9:44:25 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/8/2016 9:33:32 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/8/2016 8:59:23 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 4/8/2016 8:55:54 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/8/2016 8:44:07 PM, graceofgod wrote:
ha ha ha so while you are happy that based on alleged logic or knowledge of non believers it is fine to slate believers, to ridicule and call them for making the choice to believe but for some reason you are not prepared to say it is fine for heterosexuals to belittle, ridicule and name call homosexuals based on any logic or knowledge..

As I thought atheists and it seems homosexuals do not want equality until it suits their needs..lol

This is called a strawman, GoG. It's what people do when they have nothing substantive to argue.

I have not taken a position in this conversation on whether assigning vulnerable minority status to gay people is warranted -- or if so, to what degree or for how long. It's simply not relevant to whether religion in general should be criticised.

However, you have attempted to make the claim that your faith -- a majority faith in the US, often over-represented in legislature and judiciary -- should be accorded vulnerable minority status while no other faith should -- apparently based on some vague argument of equivalence that you didn't explain and haven't defended.

It's not a claim you've been able to argue, so you've stramanned a position for me on gay vulnerability, asserted equivalence without evidence, and shifted the burden of proof from you defending the equivalence you asserted, to me rebutting it when you haven't made the case in the first place.

If nothing else, you're making a great illustration for why the thinking of the religious should be criticised. But please feel free to correct that and:
a) argue the vulnerable minority status of your own faith; while
b) rebutting it for every other faith but your own -- including faiths smaller and less well-understood than yours, who have no representation in legislature or judiciary.

Or else abandon this line as the puffed up rhetoric it appears to be, piled onto the special pleading your whole thread appears to be. :p

this is not a strawman at all , it is fact do you or do you not agree that heterosexuals should be able to bully, call, be little and jest at the expense of homosexuals based upon their logic and knowledge and beliefs... ?? it's a simple enough question

I absolutely do think it legitimate to criticise the thoughts or actions of a group, where such criticism is also accountable for its justice and compassion. That includes homosexuals, atheists and so on. But note that I have said 'criticise' and 'accountable'. Virtually all vilification -- including that perpetrated by the religious on any group they don't like -- is not criticism, is not just or compassionate, and is not accountable for its cruelty and injustice.

You will eventually make the point I'm sure, that some atheistic commentary about the faithful is vilifying, cruel and unjust.

That's true, and I oppose it both in principle and often in deed. However, you've cast a broader net in this thread. Here's the scope you wrote again:
Is anyone else bored of these atheism thumpers that spend all day every day trying to convince people of faith they are stupid or delusional

And again, later:
if they don't want to believe fine that's their decision but they should leave believers alone.

You're not saying that just, compassionate criticism is welcome. In fact, you've argued that any criticism of faith by an atheist should be viewed as an attack by a bully on a vulnerable minority.

Since your faith is hardly a minority in your jurisdiction, and hardly known for its live-and-let-live policies toward other faiths and life choices, I'm wondering whether in this argument you would like your faith to be remembered not only for its millennia of pathological bullying, but also for being whining bullies unable to take constructive criticism?

And since I've responded to your ignorant straw-man in good faith, GoG, let us now return to the questions you haven't answered:
1) Is all criticism of all religion to be forbidden, or just criticism of yours?
2) Do you believe a pluralist society can be just and compassionate if it is forbidden to criticise religion?

there is no ignorance or strawman other than in your own imagination and all you have done is hidden in words , you are dishonest, hiding behind your terms and conditions and what vilifying is and isn't, just to hide your own bias and inequality..
you and people like you decry the rights of others while demanding your own rights to be adhered to and understood..

If I called every homosexual I met, stupid for being gay, if i called them queers , idiots, causing harm by their vile acts of sexual debauchery I would no doubt be arrested, if I posted such things I would no doubt be in equally serious trouble and also berated by others for my blinkered and unfriendly attitude and views..
Yet many seem to think to ridicule, bully , call believers is fine, why shouldn't we be able to "question" their stupid beliefs...

And for some reason you seem to think numbers make a difference that only a minority should be protected...
Perhaps the idea that the believers numbers are shrinking is a good then, when there are so few left perhaps they can finally look forward to the protection and elevation to the position of those who cannot be questioned under any circumstances.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2016 11:03:56 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/8/2016 9:44:25 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 4/8/2016 9:33:32 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/8/2016 8:59:23 PM, graceofgod wrote:
Do you or do you not agree that heterosexuals should be able to bully, call, be little and jest at the expense of homosexuals based upon their logic and knowledge and beliefs... ?? it's a simple enough question

I absolutely do think it legitimate to criticise the thoughts or actions of a group, where such criticism is also accountable for its justice and compassion. That includes homosexuals, atheists and so on. But note that I have said 'criticise' and 'accountable'. Virtually all vilification -- including that perpetrated by the religious on any group they don't like -- is not criticism, is not just or compassionate, and is not accountable for its cruelty and injustice.

You will eventually make the point I'm sure, that some atheistic commentary about the faithful is vilifying, cruel and unjust.

That's true, and I oppose it both in principle and often in deed. However, you've cast a broader net in this thread. Here's the scope you wrote again:
Is anyone else bored of these atheism thumpers that spend all day every day trying to convince people of faith they are stupid or delusional

And again, later:
if they don't want to believe fine that's their decision but they should leave believers alone.

You're not saying that just, compassionate criticism is welcome. In fact, you've argued that any criticism of faith by an atheist should be viewed as an attack by a bully on a vulnerable minority.

Since your faith is hardly a minority in your jurisdiction, and hardly known for its live-and-let-live policies toward other faiths and life choices, I'm wondering whether in this argument you would like your faith to be remembered not only for its millennia of pathological bullying, but also for being whining bullies unable to take constructive criticism?

And since I've responded to your ignorant straw-man in good faith, GoG, let us now return to the questions you haven't answered:
1) Is all criticism of all religion to be forbidden, or just criticism of yours?
2) Do you believe a pluralist society can be just and compassionate if it is forbidden to criticise religion?

there is no ignorance or strawman other than in your own imagination
This is the fourth time you've evaded these questions, each time with irrelevant questions, putting words into my mouth, with ad-hominem criticisms or outright deceit -- saying you've answered when you haven't.

you are dishonest, hiding behind your terms and conditions and what vilifying is and isn't,
So let me get this right. I've said criticism of any group is legitimate if it's accountable for justice and compassion.

Do you disagree? Are you saying that criticism of your faith is not allowed even if it serves the interests of justice and kindness?

Now, I have also said that by its very nature, vilification is indifferent toward (and generally inimical to) both justice and compassion. Do you disagree with that?

If you agree with both, then how am I being dishonest? Else, if you disagree with one or more, which is it?

you and people like you decry the rights of others while demanding your own rights to be adhered to and understood..
What rights? I've said you're free to criticise atheism, homosexuality or anything else provided that you are accountable to justice and compassion when you do so. I've also asked you whether you believe criticism of faith on grounds of justice and compassion is legitimate, and if it's not then how can justice and compassion be served in a pluralistic society.

You have evaded that every time I asked it.

And for some reason you seem to think numbers make a difference that only a minority should be protected...
No, I've said that you have equated a majority faith with a minority considered vulnerable, and want the same treatment, while denying that treatment to other faiths smaller and potentially more vulnerable than yours.

Do you disagree? Do you believe your faith is not a majority in your jurisdiction, that homosexuals are not a minority, or that they're not considered vulnerable due to misunderstanding and frequent misrepresentation by people in power?
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2016 12:55:45 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/7/2016 5:01:04 PM, graceofgod wrote:
Is anyone else bored of these atheism thumpers that spend all day every day trying to convince people of faith they are stupid or delusional, while ignoring any argument against their atheism nd little or no knowledge of what they have decided is wrong...

Last time I checked, ANY time there is an argument against Atheism specifically, or FOR god in some way specifically (indirectly against atheism), you will normally get dozens of responses from Atheists detailing the specific logical fallacy or flaw in the argument being presented, almost without fail.

That doesn't strike me as "ignoring any argument against their atheism".
Canuck
Posts: 164
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2016 4:50:48 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/8/2016 9:44:25 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 4/8/2016 9:33:32 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/8/2016 8:59:23 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 4/8/2016 8:55:54 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/8/2016 8:44:07 PM, graceofgod wrote:
ha ha ha so while you are happy that based on alleged logic or knowledge of non believers it is fine to slate believers, to ridicule and call them for making the choice to believe but for some reason you are not prepared to say it is fine for heterosexuals to belittle, ridicule and name call homosexuals based on any logic or knowledge..

As I thought atheists and it seems homosexuals do not want equality until it suits their needs..lol

This is called a strawman, GoG. It's what people do when they have nothing substantive to argue.

I have not taken a position in this conversation on whether assigning vulnerable minority status to gay people is warranted -- or if so, to what degree or for how long. It's simply not relevant to whether religion in general should be criticised.

However, you have attempted to make the claim that your faith -- a majority faith in the US, often over-represented in legislature and judiciary -- should be accorded vulnerable minority status while no other faith should -- apparently based on some vague argument of equivalence that you didn't explain and haven't defended.

It's not a claim you've been able to argue, so you've stramanned a position for me on gay vulnerability, asserted equivalence without evidence, and shifted the burden of proof from you defending the equivalence you asserted, to me rebutting it when you haven't made the case in the first place.

If nothing else, you're making a great illustration for why the thinking of the religious should be criticised. But please feel free to correct that and:
a) argue the vulnerable minority status of your own faith; while
b) rebutting it for every other faith but your own -- including faiths smaller and less well-understood than yours, who have no representation in legislature or judiciary.

Or else abandon this line as the puffed up rhetoric it appears to be, piled onto the special pleading your whole thread appears to be. :p

this is not a strawman at all , it is fact do you or do you not agree that heterosexuals should be able to bully, call, be little and jest at the expense of homosexuals based upon their logic and knowledge and beliefs... ?? it's a simple enough question

I absolutely do think it legitimate to criticise the thoughts or actions of a group, where such criticism is also accountable for its justice and compassion. That includes homosexuals, atheists and so on. But note that I have said 'criticise' and 'accountable'. Virtually all vilification -- including that perpetrated by the religious on any group they don't like -- is not criticism, is not just or compassionate, and is not accountable for its cruelty and injustice.

You will eventually make the point I'm sure, that some atheistic commentary about the faithful is vilifying, cruel and unjust.

That's true, and I oppose it both in principle and often in deed. However, you've cast a broader net in this thread. Here's the scope you wrote again:
Is anyone else bored of these atheism thumpers that spend all day every day trying to convince people of faith they are stupid or delusional

And again, later:
if they don't want to believe fine that's their decision but they should leave believers alone.

You're not saying that just, compassionate criticism is welcome. In fact, you've argued that any criticism of faith by an atheist should be viewed as an attack by a bully on a vulnerable minority.

Since your faith is hardly a minority in your jurisdiction, and hardly known for its live-and-let-live policies toward other faiths and life choices, I'm wondering whether in this argument you would like your faith to be remembered not only for its millennia of pathological bullying, but also for being whining bullies unable to take constructive criticism?

And since I've responded to your ignorant straw-man in good faith, GoG, let us now return to the questions you haven't answered:
1) Is all criticism of all religion to be forbidden, or just criticism of yours?
2) Do you believe a pluralist society can be just and compassionate if it is forbidden to criticise religion?

there is no ignorance or strawman other than in your own imagination and all you have done is hidden in words , you are dishonest, hiding behind your terms and conditions and what vilifying is and isn't, just to hide your own bias and inequality..
you and people like you decry the rights of others while demanding your own rights to be adhered to and understood..

If I called every homosexual I met, stupid for being gay, if i called them queers , idiots, causing harm by their vile acts of sexual debauchery I would no doubt be arrested, if I posted such things I would no doubt be in equally serious trouble and also berated by others for my blinkered and unfriendly attitude and views..
Yet many seem to think to ridicule, bully , call believers is fine, why shouldn't we be able to "question" their stupid beliefs...

And for some reason you seem to think numbers make a difference that only a minority should be protected...
Perhaps the idea that the believers numbers are shrinking is a good then, when there are so few left perhaps they can finally look forward to the protection and elevation to the position of those who cannot be questioned under any circumstances.

All beliefs should be subject to criticism and religions should not have a special exemption. I believe people should be respectful and honest in their criticisms.
And homosexuality is not a belief system so is a poor analogy. How about political beliefs? If we can criticize that, why not religion (or lack of religion)?
And this is a religion forum on a debate website, so if you don't want to see criticism of your religion, I respectfully suggest you stay off this site.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,580
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2016 3:45:26 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/7/2016 5:01:04 PM, graceofgod wrote:
Is anyone else bored of these atheism thumpers that spend all day every day trying to convince people of faith they are stupid or delusional,

I guess then it's perfectly acceptable for you to spend all your time trying to convince other people of faith they are stupid or delusional? You want that right but you don't want others to have that right. How huge in the massivity of hypocrisy do you wish to display?

while ignoring any argument against their atheism nd little or no knowledge of what they have decided is wrong...

Yes, while you have been ignoring arguments against your beliefs, which can be shown in this very thread.

You're sure you don't want to change your mind and show some integrity, honesty and equality? Or, will you continue down this path of hypocrisy?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2016 4:34:08 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/8/2016 6:42:59 PM, graceofgod wrote:
I don't mind the atheists at all to be honest but when they go around forcing their beliefs down the throats of others I think it is wrong, if they don't want to believe fine that's their decision but they should leave believers alone.

You do realize that this is a debate site right?
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2016 4:36:53 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/8/2016 11:03:56 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/8/2016 9:44:25 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 4/8/2016 9:33:32 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/8/2016 8:59:23 PM, graceofgod wrote:
Do you or do you not agree that heterosexuals should be able to bully, call, be little and jest at the expense of homosexuals based upon their logic and knowledge and beliefs... ?? it's a simple enough question

I absolutely do think it legitimate to criticise the thoughts or actions of a group, where such criticism is also accountable for its justice and compassion. That includes homosexuals, atheists and so on. But note that I have said 'criticise' and 'accountable'. Virtually all vilification -- including that perpetrated by the religious on any group they don't like -- is not criticism, is not just or compassionate, and is not accountable for its cruelty and injustice.

You will eventually make the point I'm sure, that some atheistic commentary about the faithful is vilifying, cruel and unjust.

That's true, and I oppose it both in principle and often in deed. However, you've cast a broader net in this thread. Here's the scope you wrote again:
Is anyone else bored of these atheism thumpers that spend all day every day trying to convince people of faith they are stupid or delusional

And again, later:
if they don't want to believe fine that's their decision but they should leave believers alone.

You're not saying that just, compassionate criticism is welcome. In fact, you've argued that any criticism of faith by an atheist should be viewed as an attack by a bully on a vulnerable minority.

Since your faith is hardly a minority in your jurisdiction, and hardly known for its live-and-let-live policies toward other faiths and life choices, I'm wondering whether in this argument you would like your faith to be remembered not only for its millennia of pathological bullying, but also for being whining bullies unable to take constructive criticism?

And since I've responded to your ignorant straw-man in good faith, GoG, let us now return to the questions you haven't answered:
1) Is all criticism of all religion to be forbidden, or just criticism of yours?
2) Do you believe a pluralist society can be just and compassionate if it is forbidden to criticise religion?

there is no ignorance or strawman other than in your own imagination
This is the fourth time you've evaded these questions, each time with irrelevant questions, putting words into my mouth, with ad-hominem criticisms or outright deceit -- saying you've answered when you haven't.

you are dishonest, hiding behind your terms and conditions and what vilifying is and isn't,
So let me get this right. I've said criticism of any group is legitimate if it's accountable for justice and compassion.

Do you disagree? Are you saying that criticism of your faith is not allowed even if it serves the interests of justice and kindness?

Now, I have also said that by its very nature, vilification is indifferent toward (and generally inimical to) both justice and compassion. Do you disagree with that?

If you agree with both, then how am I being dishonest? Else, if you disagree with one or more, which is it?

you and people like you decry the rights of others while demanding your own rights to be adhered to and understood..
What rights? I've said you're free to criticise atheism, homosexuality or anything else provided that you are accountable to justice and compassion when you do so. I've also asked you whether you believe criticism of faith on grounds of justice and compassion is legitimate, and if it's not then how can justice and compassion be served in a pluralistic society.

You have evaded that every time I asked it.

And for some reason you seem to think numbers make a difference that only a minority should be protected...
No, I've said that you have equated a majority faith with a minority considered vulnerable, and want the same treatment, while denying that treatment to other faiths smaller and potentially more vulnerable than yours.

Do you disagree? Do you believe your faith is not a majority in your jurisdiction, that homosexuals are not a minority, or that they're not considered vulnerable due to misunderstanding and frequent misrepresentation by people in power?

Not sure why you bother but I have enjoyed your exchange, especially trying to figure out whether it has been painful to read, or fascinating at how GoG can continue to pretend that his arguments are relevant to anything being discussed.
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2016 4:42:02 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
its what keeps me from getting bored everyday. Hahaha, nah I think atheist shouldnt be demeaned based on disagreeing. Just saying these kinds of threads help nobody except try to prove who has the biggest penis they can swing around.