darth_ender

yhwx said:

darth_ender said:

Lord Haseo said:

The Full Definition of bigot as provided by Merriam Webster

a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

The definition doesn’t support your accusations so in essence the foundation for your sensitivity is without substance which makes your claims even more inane.

At least you are starting to use substance instead of resorting to the “I’m right because it’s so obvious” technique. I appreciate you at least starting to use that noodle of yours, since you’re obviously so much more intelligent than the ignorant morons who profess a belief in the divine.

This is such a quintessential ad hominem attack.

Please tell me how. The first sentence is quite accurate, as that is how his approach has always been. The second sentence is sarcastic, but still accurately reflects the attitude he has postured. But I never said he was wrong because he was arrogant. I have insulted him, then systematically argued his points. You could use some debating skills yourself, young grasshopper. And please, unless you can contribute something useful instead of being the little tag-along who dittos everything someone else has said, I have little time to reply to you. I’m very short on time as it is.

TV’s Frink said:

darth_ender said:

TV’s Frink said:

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.

Do you tell anyone what to think about their sexuality? I bet you do.

Do I?

Please enlighten me.

Do you support statutory rape laws? Do you allow your daughters to engage in sexual activities with other minors? Do you support polygamous marriages? Do you believe children’s cartoons should be restored to their original form with large-breasted, barely covered female characters? Do you believe that women should not be idolized as sex objects? Do you believe clothing should be worn in public? Do you support abusive sexual relationships?

Now while these do not equate to consensual homosexual sex, the fact I am trying to point out is that you do in fact try to tell people how their sex lives should be. Now consider the nature of much older societies. They found stability in their societies in different ways than today. Some found homosexuality to be wrong and sex with fourteen year-old females to be acceptable (and in fact preferable, when the life expectancy was much shorter). Who are you to tell an ancient society what is right or wrong?

Today our society has changed, and I think a certain amount of embrace to societal change should be accepted among religious groups. They may disagree on a certain level, but that does not mean they have to be intolerant.

In my mind, the mistake of modern religious believers is the unwillingness to consider a changing message from God to a different people at a different time to meet their needs. How many Christians believe that divorce and remarrying for reasons other than adultery is in fact adultery?

Lord Haseo said:

The Full Definition of bigot as provided by Merriam Webster

a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

The definition doesn’t support your accusations so in essence the foundation for your sensitivity is without substance which makes your claims even more inane.

At least you are starting to use substance instead of resorting to the “I’m right because it’s so obvious” technique. I appreciate you at least starting to use that noodle of yours, since you’re obviously so much more intelligent than the ignorant morons who profess a belief in the divine.

However, are you obstinately devoted to your view? Are you intolerant of religion (and by extension, its adherents)? Are you expressing prejudice based on your perspective and a limited sample? Are you singling out a particular group? Note that while racial or ethnic groups are given as an example, they are not the definitive recipients of bigotry. Have you expressed hatred towards that group?

The answer to each question is yes. And then you have the audacity to say that the definition doesn’t support my accusations.

Most humorously, however, is your insistence on my sensitivity. While at times I’ve become quite upset on these very boards for what some have written, I have not even had my pulse quicken. I may have been harsh in my wording, but such was not out of anger. I actually can see decent conversations with an atheist like Jeebus. I have enjoyed many conversations with CP3S in the past, a very adamant atheist. But you literally offer nothing useful in your debates thus far. And you literally, in very definition, are a bigot. I’m sorry, but this you have demonstrated quite vividly, and your sensitivity to my use of the term only further highlights the reality of that bigotry in your heart.

moviefreakedmind said:

Christianity (or at least Christianity based solely on the Bible) is inherently “anti-gay” in the sense that it claims homosexual relations are ungodly. I don’t see how any churches can honestly get around the fact that it’s made clear in both New and Old Testaments.

If you interpret it as the literal word of God as it fell flawlessly from his lips to parchment, then it is. But many faiths actually hold more liberal interpretations. I’m sure you don’t believe women shouldn’t speak at all in church.

TV’s Frink said:

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.

Do you tell anyone what to think about their sexuality? I bet you do.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

Have you ever tried to have a conversation with someone, and every single comment either of you makes, someone else standing nearby feels he/she has to insert some kind of response, even if it’s just some sycophantic comment in agreement?

yhwx!

Well good, I’m glad to hear that. Since we have clarification following, I would still like to leave your quote, as many in fact use your hypothetical reasoning to justify their hated.

Jeebus said:

darth_ender said:

Oooooh…I get it. It’s the atheist version of that “Hate the sin, love the sinner” thing. Caughtcha! How progressive!

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.

“Your sexuality is inherently sinful and wrong, but it doesn’t change my opinion of you as a person.”

vs

“I hate Christianity, but it doesn’t change my opinion of you as a person.”

Here you justify the difference between hating a religion vs hating homosexuality if one is okay and one is not. Both are bigotry.

[Lord Haseo] said: (post/id/960187)

Some of us don’t hate you (as in Christians) just the Religion itself so that is in no way bigotry.

[Darth Lucas] said: (post/id/960228)

Hell I’ll say it. I hate Islam. I hate Christianity. I hate Judaism. I hate religion.

That being said, some of my best friends are Muslim, Christian, and Jewish. I do not judge a person based on their religion, rather on their actions, but especially where those actions are (good or bad) fueled by religion.

[yhwx] said: (post/id/960229)

I guess hating religion in general is OK. I may be under that category.

[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 many of the tolerant, anti-bigotry atheists/agnostics rushed to the defense of religion when these statements were made? How many found them offensive?

I waited a few days for the conversation to die down (besides, I haven’t had time to post anything anyway). I chose a thread that I knew was frequented by many of the same posters as in my Religion thread. I deliberately chose the word “hate” as opposed to “dislike,” “am disappointed,” etc. I broad brushed all of black culture at a sensitive time, in spite of my admiration of many aspects of black culture. I deliberately chose aspects of black culture that do tend to be disappointing, but certainly are not universal. And I deliberately made the distinction between black culture (which can be changed, is instilled since childhood, and ultimately is a choice to remain with or abandon) and black people. I made a perfect analogy among friends who should know me well enough to know that I did not mean what I said. And I gave you all enough to get up in arms over it. To what end?

I simply illustrated that it is still bigotry to generalize the way some have towards religion, that genetic inheritance and identity through culture and religion (which in and of itself is a culture) are not so different that bigotry is not an inappropriate label for those who discriminate and hate.

My friends on this board, I wish I could share in great detail the peace that I was able to give a patient this very day due to our shared religion. You may hate all you like, may justify your reasoning all you like, and condemn that which you will never make any legitimate effort to understand. But at the end of the day, anyone who called me racist for my insincere but illustrative comments earlier indeed have demonstrated that there is an acceptable bigotry among many atheists. It is unfortunate, as I respect many good atheists.

Most of you will never see the good that religion offers, just like so many true racists never see the good in black people or black culture. Just like they are blinded by the facts, exaggerations, and anecdotal evidence I shared earlier, you are blinded by certain aspects of religion. But just as I enjoy listening to jazz, you will never enjoy the beauty of God bringing peace to one’s heart, as a female patient and I shared together.

Darth_ender is not a bigot. But there are bigots in this very forum, and many of them are likely convinced that they are in fact the least of the bigots. Sorry to disappoint you.

Lord Haseo said:

Maybe when it comes to things that you can’t choose. Pedophilia excluded.

EDIT:

Also just because some people are psychologically abused by threats of eternal hell fire and/or abandonment when they were kids or only believes in a particular religion because their life would be dismal without it doesn’t mean it’s something they’re born with it. That and sexual orientation are completely different.

That shows very little understanding of what most people get out of their religion. Such is again the definition of prejudice. Well done, sir.

Bingowings said:

As a member of society If something someone is doing has a negative impact on society in general, it does hurt me so I can go through the legal process or lobby for legal change by all the means legally available to me.

Societies change, and their definition of what harms and helps them changes as well. Aztecs felt human sacrifices were a benefit to their society.

But if I can’t see how it can effect society in general or myself specifically what right have I to even comment beyond general enquiry? It’s interesting to learn new things about people so asking questions is the best way to avoid prejudice which I personally find morally and ethically indefensible.

I actually can’t argue with this at all. I completely agree and see no need to play devil’s advocate here. 😃

I have no objection to Orson Scott Card’s religious beliefs (they aren’t and never will be mine but if he finds comfort and value in them they are his and I would defend his right to keep them) and I liked his books until they were tainted by his bizarre political comments and political lobbying (which he is in his right to do as he would argue that ‘promoting’ homosexuality is bad for society in general of which he is a member) but I as a member and a former customer have every right as the injured party to act against him in the same manner. To protect my freedoms, express my disappointment and disgust to allocate my limited money to exciting new non-bigotted authors.

Well put as well.

Sorry to repeat this is one example of how I balance morals, ethics and the legal rights of protest and withholding of future payment but it’s a good example I think of how my mind makes those sorts of judgements. Dead artists can neither be quizzed or slandered so it’s very difficult to gauge what they thought back then or how they would react in a modern contest. Ghosts can’t change their mind, sadly. They can’t personally benefit from my pocket money either so despite the rumours about HP Lovecraft I have no problem buying his books (especially from a charity shop). Thrift is a moral and ethical practise I approve of.

But here I can argue. You say elsewhere that Christians and Jews and Muslims need to repudiate parts of their texts. I disagree, based on your very statements here. The authors of the Bible lived in the context of their own culture. I do not for one instant believe God dictated the Bible word for word, but rather believe it was the inspiration of men living in their own time. God inspired what was truly a socially advanced society compared to those surrounding Israel, but by today’s standards looks primitive. Instead of judging the Bible and the religions based on it, I would judge today’s people on how they live the principles Christ laid down, which include loving our neighbors. I believe God intended for people to grow in tolerance of each other as their societies were prepared to do so.

So my argument is this: don’t judge past authors by today’s standards.

I hope this is the beginning of more fruitful discussion. I’ve never held any ill will towards you, but merely frustration with what I believe was a serious barrier in our communication.

Lord Haseo said:

darth_ender said:

It doesn’t have to be specific.

Why is murder wrong? When is killing right? Are animals entitled to equal rights as people in terms of killing? Are fetuses entitled to equal rights as born humans?

But most important, why?

Murder is a tricky one…killing someone in general with no provocation is the ultimate wrong doing because you’re excreting your will upon that person in the most potent manner. And not only are you ending a person but you are ending what that particular person could have become. But on the flip side I think murder is justified if it’s to save an innocent life or if the law is to inept to put the murderer away.

Is it really wrong? We in the modern world talk as if it is a given, but might not humans be a stronger, better species if we allowed for more natural selection? Survival of the fittest would allow for superior genetics, and we might not be plagued with so many physical and mental illnesses. Humans could utilize their natural aggression to better the species as a whole.

Is ending what a person might have been really so bad? We do it all the time when women get abortions, yet it remains legal.

Are you advocating for vigilantism? Without the order imposed by society in the legal system, would not society collapse?

Yes, I contradict myself, but the point is, are you sure you are right?

Bingowings said:

Morality is subjective and personal, ethics are codified by institutions and are situational, legality is dependent on the state.

I believe these are good and useful definitions.

If you don’t like what someone does ask yourself how does this hurt me. If it obstructs your life adversely seek legal action. If the laws don’t exist lobby your representatives. If it doesn’t hurt you just leave it alone. Keep to your ethics and morals and let other people live their lives as they see fit. If you do stick your nose in expect to get a response you won’t like. People have every right to fight for and defend their freedoms.

But this is where I argue, as I promised to do in the beginning. Just because something hurts you does not mean what they do is or should be illegal. Surgery hurts. Dental work hurts. Disciplinary action at work obstructs one’s life.

If it doesn’t hurt you but it hurts someone else, why should I not take action? Could not more Germans have taken action when the Jews of the Third Reich were having their rights removed further and further? It didn’t hurt those non-Jews, but perhaps they could have done something.

If someone else’s differing morals do not affect you directly, but you feel they adversely affect your society, are you not obliged to fight against their personal beliefs and moral code? They have the right to fight back, but fighting back implies you have the right to fight them in the first place.

So it’s “love the sinner, hate the sin,” which has been identified as hypocritical and bigoted on this forum.

Lord Haseo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Jeebus said:

darth_ender said:

Oooooh…I get it. It’s the atheist version of that “Hate the sin, love the sinner” thing. Caughtcha! How progressive!

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.

“Your sexuality is inherently sinful and wrong, but it doesn’t change my opinion of you as a person.”

vs

“I hate Christianity, but it doesn’t change my opinion of you as a person.”

People’s religion is often as important to them (if not more so) than their sexuality.

Just because it’s important to them doesn’t mean it’s still not a choice. Especially for those who are adults.

I am an American by birth. I could choose not o identify with the culture, but I’ve come to identify pretty strongly with it. It’s still a strong part of my identity. It fulfills my human needs. Same with my faith. Just because they are not physical characteristics does not mean they are not deeply ingrained, and just because they are not built into my body doesn’t mean one’s prejudice against my religion or nationality isn’t bigotry.

Jeebus said:

darth_ender said:

So it’s only valid in cases where someone has a choice?

I’m not sure I would say it that way, but I’m not really sure how I would say it.

By that logic, I can’t “hate the sin” of an individual attracted to the same sex, but I can “hate the sin” of someone having homosexual sex, right? Bear in mind that you probably don’t know my views on homosexuality (and others who’ve known me longer and think they do likely not either) so don’t bring me personally into this. It’s merely a question. Homosexual sex is in fact a choice.

Sexual relief is a requirement for humans, and if you’re gay then the only way to get that is through gay sex. It may technically be a choice, but it’s a choice in the sense that your only other option is to be unhappy/sexually frustrated.

Many people live happy celibate lives and religion fulfills many human needs (not mere desires) for many people.

^you catch on pretty quick.

A part of me wonders if Rick McCallum frequents this site, and if he does, is he yhwx?