I will not shoot the next priest I see...

[Seth]

And if you think my premises are mistaken, then feel free to explain exactly how they are mistaken and we'll discuss it.

Been there, tried that. Discussions with you leave me with the impression that I've tried to talk things over with a fundamentalist christian or muslim. Your dogmatism is impervious to logic or fact.

No it's not, it's just that your idea of "logic" and "fact" is seriously deficient, which I go to great lengths to explain to you. It's you who are impenetrable to logic and fact...in point of fact.

You (and most everybody else) never bring your A game to the arena, you are sloppy, lazy and careless in your argumentation because you think you know everything and have nothing to learn from others. You leave me with so many chinks in your armor that it's ridiculously simple to slip the poinard in and skewer your arguments.

Pay more attention and bring an honest interest in exploring a subject to the arena and you might be pleasantly surprised. But I refuse to waste more of my time than I feel is warranted (and that I have time for) on sloppy, lazy argumentation.

Note has been made of how I skewer Blind Gropers silly claims in detail, which I do despite the fact that his argumentation is ignorant, stupid and ill-informed, because I feel it important to debunk his hoplophobic illogic and unreason.

The classic problem around here is that when someone defends a position that is outside the liberal Atheist orthodoxy, orthodox liberal Atheists don't know what to do. They lose their tempers and expect that their proclamations and announcements will go unchallenged and ought to be respected as unassailable conventional wisdom.

It happens that my specialty is taking contrarian positions for the purposes of advancing the debate, and my expertise is in dissecting flawed logic and ill-considered arguments and pointing out the flaws in my opponent's reasoning, often buy using both sarcasm and by viewing the subject from the opposite perspective, which I always find to be instructive.

Provide better arguments, and put some scholarship and thought into it rather than dogmatic repetition of Atheist talking points and you might find things to be more interesting.

[pErvinalia]

And if you think my premises are mistaken, then feel free to explain exactly how they are mistaken and we'll discuss it.

Been there, tried that. Discussions with you leave me with the impression that I've tried to talk things over with a fundamentalist christian or muslim. Your dogmatism is impervious to logic or fact.

[Seth]

And if you think my premises are mistaken, then feel free to explain exactly how they are mistaken and we'll discuss it.

Been there, tried that. Discussions with you leave me with the impression that I've tried to talk things over with a fundamentalist christian or muslim. Your dogmatism is impervious to logic or fact.

Like you're one to talk....

[pErvinalia]

Look out Seth, I think there's a Marxist sneaking up behind you!1!!

[Hermit]

The classic problem around here is that when...

...you are presented with facts, you try to argue against them. Nothing wrong with that, of course. The problem occurs when, after failing to do so, you adopt one or more of these four options: You ignore them. You repeat your view of what the facts are. You pronounce facts you disagree with to be irrelevant. You declare your position to be unassailable and get quite personal with those who disagree with you.

I revise something I mentioned above: In a way, it might be preferable to attempt a discussion with a fundamentalist theist.

[Seth]

The classic problem around here is that when...

...you are presented with facts, you try to argue against them. Nothing wrong with that, of course. The problem occurs when, after failing to do so, you adopt one or more of these four options: You ignore them. You repeat your view of what the facts are. You pronounce facts you disagree with to be irrelevant. You declare your position to be unassailable and get quite personal with those who disagree with you.

I revise something I mentioned above: In a way, it might be preferable to attempt a discussion with a fundamentalist theist.

Actually the problem is that I'm almost never presented with facts, I'm presented with either opinions masquerading as facts or false information purveyed as fact, or on occasions facts incompetently presented that requires educating the presenter in the error of his ways.

Nor do I get personal with anyone until and unless they get personal with me first, which happens frequently when I debunk the "factoids" presented by others as supposedly-factual arguments that really are no such thing.

Present me with an actual fact and I'll acknowledge it, though I may well, and often do take issue with how a particular fact is used in context and whether that particular fact supports the argument it's cited in favor of. BG is the current king of irrelevant factoid citation as I see it.

[normal]

What if you just boil their meat and veg as soon as they decide to become priests?

(Seth: shut up, Meg)

[Animavore]

Priests make terrorist threats all the time. Only it's a post-mortem terror which they fill people up with. Gawdzilla killing one is poetic justice

Are they making threats or providing warnings?

I'd say they are just providing a warning. After all THEY aren't condemning anyone to perdition.

How is that any better? It's like someone saying to you, "Mind you don't have an accident on the way home." There is an ill-will behind it I find threatening.

How about they say "STOP! Don't drive down that road, the bridge is out and you will surely DIE!" Is there an ill will there? I think not.

That's the thing, you see, believers BELIEVE that the unsaved are doomed to an eternity of suffering and they firmly believe that it is their moral and civic duty to show sinners the truth (as they see it) and lead them to salvation because THAT is what Christ commanded them to do.

There is no ill will in such beliefs or actions. Of course some believers of many different religions, specifically Islam, go far beyond just saying "Repent or spend eternity in Hell", they see themselves and their religious bretheren as superior and favored of God and everybody else as an infidel who must be killed if they cannot be brought to the faith. Even Christians are subject to this sort of perversion of the messages of the New Testament, as can be seen historically in the actions of some of the higher authorities in the Catholic church during, by way of example, the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition.

But because one sect of any religion acts this way does not mean that those members are necessarily and automatically acting in obedience to their own doctrine, much less does it mean that ALL members of a particular religion, or sect, believe or act in that way.

This is why the blind maligning of Christians by Atheists is so intellectually bankrupt. They refuse to acknowledge that there are many different sects of Christianity and that the vast majority of them are peaceable, kind, loving and tolerant and cannot be lumped in with other sects who are less tolerant or obedient to the words of Jesus.

It's exactly like saying that all atheists are Atheists and that they are all intolerant, ignorant fuckwits who have no reasoning ability but instead rely on emotion and blind hatred.

Can't trust people like that. Who knows what they would do if they were in power and decided that an existential warning wasn't enough. Torture, burning at the stake... etc.

EDIT: 'metaphysical' not 'existential'.

Remind me to chastise the Highway Department for putting up all those "Road Closed" signs and likewise the Highway Patrol for writing all those tickets to people who ignore the advisory.

I know there are different sects of Christianity, and even people with different views within sects, most of my friends are Catholic (given it's Ireland), Christian and there's also a couple of Muslims, Hindus and a Taoist thrown in. But just about all of them, but one creationist, don't believe in a god that sends people to hell. So none of them ever give me that condescending, patronising, learned concern for my soul. This in spite of what The Church says. They also support divorce, don't care about sex outside marriage or masturbation, or abortion to save a mother's life so there's no danger of them ostracising, maligning, condemning people or shipping them off to homes all under the guise of 'being concerned for their spiritual well-being'. It's because they hold these moderate and reasonable views I trust them.
What I don't trust are the clergy who until recent history blasted people from the pulpit, sent young people to homes to be abused, terrorised kids with fire and brimstone speeches in the schools, yes, terrorised them, put the fear of God in them, this wasn't a mild warning out of concern. This was in-your-face stuff. The Church would very quickly fall back into this level of brainwashing and control given the chance because they still do it in non-secular countries. It's only because of the secularisation of Ireland we've moved away from what amounted to theocracy.

You can stick your fingers in your ears all you want and pretend it doesn't happen but I'm every bit as wary of religious orders seizing totalitarian control as you are, justly I believe, of Marxist Communists taking over.

So, to sum up, I distrust people who believe in hell because I know the misery caused when those people take steps, for the good of the people, to save immortal souls by bending everyone to their will. Being from a coutry which has seperation of church and state you should understand this because my view is no different to the Founding Fathers in this regard

[Hermit]

Nor do I get personal with anyone until and unless they get personal with me first

And in the next post:

you think you know everything and have nothing to learn from others.

Factually incorrect. Isn't it ironic that one of the issues I have changed my mind about as a result of reading things is gun control?

Thanks for getting gratuitously personal, though. No thanks for proving me right.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I sometimes wonder if Seeth would pass a Turing test. He seems like nothing more than a random insult generator.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

It happens that my specialty is taking contrarian positions for the purposes of advancing the debate

This is the umpteenth time you have made this point. But the fact is, I have only ever seen you take a single position in any argument you have presented - hard-line, libertarian gun-nut. There are plenty more contrarian positions out there that you could pick from but you choose to stick to the same, tired, repetitive line. So either, you are utterly lacking in imagination, or your claim is simply bullshit.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

...your claim is simply bullshit.

[pErvinalia]

It happens that my specialty is taking contrarian positions for the purposes of advancing the debate

This is the umpteenth time you have made this point. But the fact is, I have only ever seen you take a single position in any argument you have presented - hard-line, libertarian gun-nut. There are plenty more contrarian positions out there that you could pick from but you choose to stick to the same, tired, repetitive line. So either, you are utterly lacking in imagination, or your claim is simply bullshit.

Yep. I know for a fact he believes this crap that he argues. He's not being a contrarian. He's being a fanatic.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

It happens that my specialty is taking contrarian positions for the purposes of advancing the debate

This is the umpteenth time you have made this point. But the fact is, I have only ever seen you take a single position in any argument you have presented - hard-line, libertarian gun-nut. There are plenty more contrarian positions out there that you could pick from but you choose to stick to the same, tired, repetitive line. So either, you are utterly lacking in imagination, or your claim is simply bullshit.

Yep. I know for a fact he believes this crap that he argues. He's not being a contrarian. He's being a fanatic.

Well I know for a fact that you're gay and eat your own toenails.

[pErvinalia]

Have you tried wanking?