An evening without Richard Dawkins

[Seth]

I have got perspective. I'm from a Catholic country. It's you that has no perspective here.

Really? So you believe that every single Catholic, and every single Catholic priest is guilty of child molestation and criminal acts against others? Who does and does not have the perspective here again?

Anyway. I'm not going to stand here and let you twist my arguments all day to suit what you want them to say.

Ah, the Monty Python classic: "Run away! Run away!"

Perhaps it's your arguments that are weak and have failed under load, which would explain your reluctance to defend them. It might help you to examine the flaws in your arguments so that you can improve them. Perhaps then they will then stand up to critical scrutiny, reason, and logic.

It's my purpose to put your arguments to the test precisely so that you can discover the flaws that make them weak, correct those flaws using reason and logic rather than irrationality, bigotry and bias, and restate them as strong arguments.

You're welcome.

Yeah. You see. This I never said. Or anything close.

Sorry, but that's what you seem to imply with your vague rebuttal to my assertion that only those actually guilty of crimes should be held accountable for their crimes and that you should have some perspective about the utility of religion to people who don't commit crimes under the guise of religion while you cling to some notion that the Catholic church, all one billion of them, are inherently evil. If that's not what you meant, then you might want to make note of the question mark at the end of the sentence and the construction of the sentence and properly interpret it as what is often called a "leading question" intended to elicit a response that clarifies your argument.

Good bye.

Or not. Whatever. If you're not up to defending your arguments, you probably should retire from the field in disgrace. Now go away you silly English knigit or I will taunt you a second time...

[Exi5tentialist]

silly English knigit

Is that better or worse than a barbaric Nigerian savage on the Seth racism scale?

[Exi5tentialist]

That would be up to God, not me.

Yes but, surely you could get Him to register an account at Ratz to give His view. I mean, will He toss a coin? If He doesn't come down here to tell us, we'll never know.

In the meantime, temporal authority should punish them appropriately, as Jesus suggested is proper.

"suggested" seems a bit tenuous for delivering a punishment, Have you got anything more concrete?

[Hermit]

The bible itself is a very flexible book.

Not really.

In it can be found justification for anything under the sun, from witch burning through condemnation of homosexuality to slavery.

So?

So, the bible itself is a very flexible book after all. For just about any bible verse of any significance you can find another that says the opposite. What flavour your christianity turns out to be depends on which ones you cherry-pick. For example, currently, the all merciful Christ is in fashion with the majority. They are the one's who ignore Luke 19:27: "Jesus said, 'But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.'" This cherry-picking among bible verses is one reason why we have so many different brands of churches, each of which claims to be the True Christianity.

If you think you can arbitrate which bits of the bible and what interpretations of them are part of true christianity, you are deluded.

Not really. I've read the New Testament you see, which overrules the Old Testament and changes all the rules for Christians.

If the old new testament did overrule the old one, the various christian varieties would not have it lying on every pulpit of every church. They would have done what the protestant churches have done when they ripped eleven books out of their version of the holy book. Why didn't they? They kept the old testament because Jesus told them the old covenant still applies: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." [Matthew 5:17-18]

I mean, surely people-burning Christians are sinners. But they're still Christians.

Nope.

Based on what?

They don't comport with the tenets of Christianity.

Bible study fail. Read Exodus 22:18. "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."

As I said, I've done my bible studies in spades. You have not.

Oh, and predictably you avoid the bits that don't suit you, just as you dismiss statistics that fail to support your ideology.

What ideology is that, pray tell?

You need to ask? OK, your particular brand of libertarianism.

You do understand that Libertarianism is a political and economic philosophy that has nothing whatever to do with religion, right?

I said "Ideology", not religion, right? I go by the first two definitions found in the Free Dictionary:
1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a body of ideas that reflects the beliefs and interests of a nation, political system, etc. and underlies political action
2. (Philosophy) Philosophy Sociol the set of beliefs by which a group or society orders reality so as to render it intelligible

[Jason]

I'm genuinely surprised no one is going to call Seth out on his sophistical house of cards re the 'no true Scot' fallacy.

[Hermit]

I'm genuinely surprised no one is going to call Seth out on his sophistical house of cards re the 'no true Scot' fallacy.

I've done it explicitly twice so far. here and here.

[Jason]

Hmm that's the same post, but I must have missed it. I generally scroll a lot in the wars of the walls of text.

[Hermit]

Whoops. The first link was supposed to point to this one. No matter, though. Others have mentioned the issue as well, and Seth has made an attempt to worm his way out of his mess concerning the "no true..." here. I'll leave it to you to determine for yourself if he succeeded. As for me, I decided some time ago that posts consisting entirely of sophistry are best ignored.

[Jason]

That's the post I meant.

No, it's utter BS. But this is Seth after all. I understand if people can't be arsed.

[Seth]

silly English knigit

Is that better or worse than a barbaric Nigerian savage on the Seth racism scale?

Wasn't me that pointed out that the people-burners were Nigerian. I consider anyone who burns people, like Germans in 1940, to be savage barbarians, regardless of their race. And by the way, it's you that is making racist assumptions by assuming that the Nigerian people burners are of some specific race, as "Nigerian" is not a race.

[Seth]

That would be up to God, not me.

Yes but, surely you could get Him to register an account at Ratz to give His view. I mean, will He toss a coin? If He doesn't come down here to tell us, we'll never know.

Not my problem. Why don't you ask him?

In the meantime, temporal authority should punish them appropriately, as Jesus suggested is proper.

"suggested" seems a bit tenuous for delivering a punishment, Have you got anything more concrete?[/quote]

"Render unto Caesar's what is Caesar's,and unto God what is God's" Mark 12:17

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." Matthew 5:17-18

That "concrete" enough for you?

[stripes4]

Never mind all that. Lozzer, I must say, you do write beautifully. How marvellous. Well done. Your rhetoric is beyond reproach and your semantic links flow smoother than butter off a well warmed snail. A delight to read.

[Exi5tentialist]

That would be up to God, not me.

Yes but, surely you could get Him to register an account at Ratz to give His view. I mean, will He toss a coin? If He doesn't come down here to tell us, we'll never know.

Not my problem. Why don't you ask him?

Because he doesn't exist.

In the meantime, temporal authority should punish them appropriately, as Jesus suggested is proper.

"suggested" seems a bit tenuous for delivering a punishment, Have you got anything more concrete?

"Render unto Caesar's what is Caesar's,and unto God what is God's" Mark 12:17

Well, no, that doesn't say "Caesar is within his rights to enforce punishment". It just says people should pay their taxes.

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." Matthew 5:17-18

Again, no mention of punishment. We're back to the problem of suggestion.

That "concrete" enough for you?

No, you haven't established the proof that Jesus gave temporal authority to punish barbaric Nigerian savages.

[Seth]

The bible itself is a very flexible book.

Not really.

In it can be found justification for anything under the sun, from witch burning through condemnation of homosexuality to slavery.

So?

So, the bible itself is a very flexible book after all. For just about any bible verse of any significance you can find another that says the opposite. What flavour your christianity turns out to be depends on which ones you cherry-pick. For example, currently, the all merciful Christ is in fashion with the majority. They are the one's who ignore Luke 19:27: "Jesus said, 'But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.'" This cherry-picking among bible verses is one reason why we have so many different brands of churches, each of which claims to be the True Christianity.

If you think you can arbitrate which bits of the bible and what interpretations of them are part of true christianity, you are deluded.

Not really. I've read the New Testament you see, which overrules the Old Testament and changes all the rules for Christians.

If the old new testament did overrule the old one, the various christian varieties would not have it lying on every pulpit of every church. They would have done what the protestant churches have done when they ripped eleven books out of their version of the holy book. Why didn't they? They kept the old testament because Jesus told them the old covenant still applies: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." [Matthew 5:17-18]

I mean, surely people-burning Christians are sinners. But they're still Christians.

Nope.

Based on what?

They don't comport with the tenets of Christianity.

Bible study fail. Read Exodus 22:18. "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."

As I said, I've done my bible studies in spades. You have not.

Wayback Machine fallacy. That's not a tenet of modern Christianity, that's a tenet of Old Testament Judaism, and it's not a tenet that is followed by any mainstream Christian sect in any civilized country on earth today because killing witches is against the law. It's remarkable that "witches" are being burned in Nigeria precisely because it's an abhorrent practice that has been long rejected by Christians as barbaric and evil. You would fallaciously attempt to impose Old Testament practices on modern Christianity in order to justify your bigotry and hatred.

Christianity is what Christ taught, which is why it's called "Christ-ianity," and Christ NEVER taught people to kill or burn anyone.

But Christianity is also what Christians practice in today's society, within the context of the laws that exist today. You don't get to decide for Christians what Christianity is, you see, they do. Nor can you lump everyone together and assign blame or culpability for wrongdoing to those who have not done anything wrong as a method of supporting a bogus argument that religion is bad. Fact is religion is mostly good, and exists because it has positive and beneficial effects on society. It exists as an evolved societal meme that is very powerful and useful, for the most part.

Oh, and predictably you avoid the bits that don't suit you, just as you dismiss statistics that fail to support your ideology.

What ideology is that, pray tell?

You need to ask? OK, your particular brand of libertarianism.

You do understand that Libertarianism is a political and economic philosophy that has nothing whatever to do with religion, right?

I said "Ideology", not religion, right? I go by the first two definitions found in the Free Dictionary:
1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a body of ideas that reflects the beliefs and interests of a nation, political system, etc. and underlies political action
2. (Philosophy) Philosophy Sociol the set of beliefs by which a group or society orders reality so as to render it intelligible[/quote]

Why did you bring it up during a discussion about religion? What relevance does my Libertarianism have to the subject under discussion? Sounds to me like you're just setting up a red herring argument to deflect away from the debate by posting ad hominim comments.

[Seth]

That would be up to God, not me.

Yes but, surely you could get Him to register an account at Ratz to give His view. I mean, will He toss a coin? If He doesn't come down here to tell us, we'll never know.

Not my problem. Why don't you ask him?

Because he doesn't exist.

Prove it.

In the meantime, temporal authority should punish them appropriately, as Jesus suggested is proper.

"suggested" seems a bit tenuous for delivering a punishment, Have you got anything more concrete?

"Render unto Caesar's what is Caesar's,and unto God what is God's" Mark 12:17

Well, no, that doesn't say "Caesar is within his rights to enforce punishment". It just says people should pay their taxes.

Only to your dim understanding.

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." Matthew 5:17-18

Again, no mention of punishment. We're back to the problem of suggestion.

Um, inherent in the concept of "Law" is the concept of temporal authority enforcing it, a feature that only a dimwit would fail to understand.

That "concrete" enough for you?

No, you haven't established the proof that Jesus gave temporal authority to punish barbaric Nigerian savages.

Pettifoggery. Jesus didn't give authority, he acknowledged existing temporal authority and the obligation of his followers to abide by it, which anyone but a dimwitted pettifogger reading the quote would understand.