Religion — Page 58

darth_ender said:

Lord Haseo said:

Jeebus said:

[Jeebus] said: (post/id/963229)

The difference is that “Love the sinner, hate the sin” is usually referring to homosexuality. In that case, the ‘sin’ is a part of who they are, and something they can’t change. Religion is a belief, that can indeed be changed.

How is that anti-religion or bigoted at all?

Because he’s religious and the only way in his mind that he can see people hating religion is being afflicted with the symptoms of being a zealot or having dogmatic hatred. So I guess if you hate the feminazi rhetoric that means you’re bigoted because reasons.

Very intelligent post. Since you do not actually argue my points with any skill, I’ll just continue believing I was right about you.

There’s nothing to really argue. You’re throwing out baseless claims because you’re overly sensitive about your religion.

Is no one going to bring up how insane it is that religion allows people to feel entitled to any opinion at all about other people’s sexuality? Because that’s the kicker for me.

Hey, who are we to argue with what a bunch of long-dead dudes claimed God wants?

Don’t be bigoted about other people’s bigotry now. You should know better.

Religion is a beautiful thing and everyone who speaks against someone’s religion is a sad butt.

This discussion yet again. *sigh*

And someone like me is entitled to call another an asshole for that opinion.

joefavs said:

Is no one going to bring up how insane it is that religion allows people to feel entitled to any opinion at all about other people’s sexuality?

Actually it doesn’t do that. Religion tells people what to think about other people’s sexuality.

Lord Haseo said:

darth_ender said:

Lord Haseo said:

Jeebus said:

[Jeebus] said: (post/id/963229)

The difference is that “Love the sinner, hate the sin” is usually referring to homosexuality. In that case, the ‘sin’ is a part of who they are, and something they can’t change. Religion is a belief, that can indeed be changed.

How is that anti-religion or bigoted at all?

Because he’s religious and the only way in his mind that he can see people hating religion is being afflicted with the symptoms of being a zealot or having dogmatic hatred. So I guess if you hate the feminazi rhetoric that means you’re bigoted because reasons.

Very intelligent post. Since you do not actually argue my points with any skill, I’ll just continue believing I was right about you.

There’s nothing to really argue. You’re throwing out baseless claims because you’re overly sensitive about your religion.

Nothing to argue? More likely you’re too lazy or stupid to formulate a coherent argument.

And not all religions, even within Christianity, are as anti-gay as you portray. But then, that would avoid stereotyping religion.

yhwx said:

People don’t strictly do and/or follow a lot of stuff in the Bible.

Luckily.

darth_ender said:

Nothing to argue? More likely you’re too lazy or stupid to formulate a coherent argument.

I don’t think it’s wise to resort to ad-hom and insults.

yhwx said:

A good debater uses logic. A bad one uses fallacies and emotion.

Then he lost the “debate” long ago.

Lord Haseo said:

yhwx said:

A good debater uses logic. A bad one uses fallacies and emotion.

Then he lost the “debate” long ago.

I’ve done both. I’m merely waiting for any sensical reply.

yhwx said:

A good debater uses logic. A bad one uses fallacies and emotion.

This is not entirely true. Emotion has its place in debate. As a liberal leaning fellow, you should know this (no insult is intended, but merely pointing out that liberal arguments include more emotion, which I here am validating as a debating technique).

Jeebus said:

darth_ender said:

Nothing to argue? More likely you’re too lazy or stupid to formulate a coherent argument.

I don’t think it’s wise to resort to ad-hom and insults.

I am not using it to make my point about religion. I’m using it to point out that he has not yet responded to any of my points and acts as if he’s so right that it’s beyond debate.

Lord Haseo said:

darth_ender said:

Lord Haseo said:

Jeebus said:

[Jeebus] said: (post/id/963229)

The difference is that “Love the sinner, hate the sin” is usually referring to homosexuality. In that case, the ‘sin’ is a part of who they are, and something they can’t change. Religion is a belief, that can indeed be changed.

How is that anti-religion or bigoted at all?

Because he’s religious and the only way in his mind that he can see people hating religion is being afflicted with the symptoms of being a zealot or having dogmatic hatred. So I guess if you hate the feminazi rhetoric that means you’re bigoted because reasons.

Very intelligent post. Since you do not actually argue my points with any skill, I’ll just continue believing I was right about you.

There’s nothing to really argue. You’re throwing out baseless claims because you’re overly sensitive about your religion.

I’m also surprised that I’m getting called out for ad hominem attacks which are in fact intended to argue against the man’s willingness to engage in rational debate, when the true fallacies are quoted above. Lord Haseo uses purely ad hominem attacks to counter my arguments. He’s the one using the fallacies. Thanks for catching that.

darth_ender said:

Jeebus said:

darth_ender said:

Nothing to argue? More likely you’re too lazy or stupid to formulate a coherent argument.

I don’t think it’s wise to resort to ad-hom and insults.

I am not using it to make my point about religion. I’m using it to point out that he has not yet responded to any of my points and acts as if he’s so right that it’s beyond debate.

That could have been said without the insults is all I’m saying.

Well, perhaps you are right, except I think I only used a single insult in calling him stupid. Calling him too lazy to reply is completely justified in my mind.

After thinking it over, I don’t think you you saying

Nothing to argue? More likely you’re too lazy or stupid to formulate a coherent argument.

is an ad-hominem. Nor is Haseo saying

There’s nothing to really argue. You’re throwing out baseless claims because you’re overly sensitive about your religion.

An ad-hominem, in my mind, is saying someone’s wrong because unrelated insult. If Haseo had said

There’s nothing to really argue. You’re wrong, and god isn’t real, because you’re fat and stupid.

That would be an ad-hominem.

What Haseo said is just an observation, whether it’s true or false.

Insults aren’t ad-hominem.