Christianity is a grotesque blight!

[Thermal]

... if the divine overseer allows mold to permeate through his loaf then he is neither divine nor an intelligent overseer..

*doctors administering life saving penicillin glance over*

 

[Steve]

*doctors administering life saving penicillin glance over*

The analogies presented by our protagonist are uniformly pathetic.

 

[Leumas]

...
MC employed no fallacies, nor have other posters here....

The above statement is an arrant perfidy as evinced to anyone who can read...

I find this thread fascinating. It's like Dunning-Kruger and paranoia had a baby, and that baby picked up a thesaurus.

Now you have done it! You have called Leumas Hitler. Expect another page of ranting about this!

...
L**m*s will now have a joygasm because some atheist defended a tiny part of what the churches are responsible for....

As we prepare to celebrate Independence Day in the United States, I recall the immortal words of Thomas Paine: "Some mother ******* are more fun at parties than others"

Leumas, why are you shouting at a bunch of sceptics about the many and varied ills of organised religion?..

Yes. What possible relevance does it have? What do you hope to achieve by raising it here?

 

[Leumas]

No it isn't. Ad hominem is when I say "you're wrong because you're ugly" or similar.

You mean like calling me the narrow minded whining baby of Paranoia and the Dunning Kruger Effect having had sex... who also paradoxically uses a thesaurus.

I find this thread fascinating. It's like Dunning-Kruger and paranoia had a baby, and that baby picked up a thesaurus.

You just said that to say I am communicating badly... but you are not saying that all that whining and narrowminded thesaurus aided stuff I am saying is wrong.

I think you need to read the statements below...

... you continue to demonstrate woeful ignorance of the informal logical fallacies. ... You really need to bone up on the fallacies and when they are applicable before trying to ascertain their employ.

 

[Leumas]

But God's not a bread-maker, He's not called "Breads". The reason He allows molds is because His name's Cheeses.

But he does give his duped morons their daily bread... no?

 

[jsfisher]

Is wallowing in the mud more important than addressing any of the substance of the recent posts?

 

[Leumas]

What was the fallacy?

Maybe you need to ask these victims or these victims or these victims and these victims and these victims and the billions before them and the billions like them and the ones that will continue to be victimized by Islam and Christianity and Judaism and all other religions.

 

[Leumas]

Is wallowing in the mud more important than addressing any of the substance of the recent posts?

ideed... so

Y U['all] do dis?

 

[jsfisher]

ideed... so

Wallow on, then.

 

[Dr.Sid]

See ? Pointless. Also somewhat perverse.

 

[Steve]

The above statement is an arrant perfidy as evinced to anyone who can read...

So no fallacies then. Do you have any actual examples?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Maybe you need to ask these victims or these victims or these victims and these victims and these victims and the billions before them and the billions like them and the ones that will continue to be victimized by Islam and Christianity and Judaism and all other religions.

No. I didn't ask what horrible things have been done by religious people, I asked what fallacy foster zygote committed when saying Muslims of his acquaintance were not like the Taliban.

 

[Thermal]

The above statement is an arrant perfidy as evinced to anyone who can read...

We're gonna need a bigger Bingo card.

Also, you demonstrated not a single informal logical fallacy. Not one. A couple are just straightforward dry direct questions. Some are ridiculing, but that is neither fallacious nor even against forum rules. Do you, just this once, have a reply that is vaguely related to the question posed?

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Still refusing to answer yes or no questions then?

Not a good look Leumas.

Please just answer the questions that have been put to you, mine only require one word answers.

 

[junkshop]

...
MC employed no fallacies, nor have other posters here...

The above statement is an arrant perfidy as evinced to anyone who can read...

Slow down for moment, Leumas.

Take a breath.

Let's look at one of your examples _{^{(the particular example may or may not have been chosen at random)}} that you claim evinces the arrant perfidy of Thermal's statement:

Leumas, why are you shouting at a bunch of sceptics about the many and varied ills of organised religion?

Please identify the fallacy you are seeing here, because I have failed to find one.

 

[Craig4]

How is this comment of yours addressing the OP... do you have any opinion on 2 Samuel 21 and Joshua 7 at all... do you have anything to say about them being an airtight proof that YHWH of the Buybull is a Human Sacrifice demander and enjoyer??

And the ill begotten son of YHWH having had his mother raped by YHWH for the express purpose of making himself a Human Sacrifice does not exactly absolve the cult of the human sacrificed Zombie of being a cult of worship of a human sacrifice and a deity who demands human sacrifice...





And you are fully wrong to boot... Jesus did not do that... he in fact caused more human sacrifices.... there were plenty of human sacrifices to Jesus and his deadbeat sky daddy by the numerous martyrs who sacrificed their lives for them and continued to do so for millennia....

Not to mention the scads of victims who were sacrificed to Jesus for not accepting to swallow his zombie human sacrifice cult.

I suggest you look at the history of Christianity more closely.

However... this OP is about the verses in 2 Samuel 21 and Joshua 7 being an irrefragable proof of YHWH being a demander and accepter and enjoyer of human sacrifice.

Do you have anything to say about that???




.

Were you expecting anyone to come down on the, "Human Sacrifice is Okay", side? I generally assume that not being pro human sacrifice is the default setting.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Yes it proves the point of fallacious apologetics for the religion.

Pointing out that not all Muslims are like the Taliban isn't religious apologia.

Religion is not like a box of apples where one rotten apple does not mean throwing the whole box away.

Silly me. I thought we were talking about human beings, not things that can be thrown away.

Religion is supposed to be from a divine source with a divine overseer... if the divine overseer allows mold to permeate through his loaf then he is neither divine nor an intelligent overseer.

But neither of us believe in that divine overseer, so why are we even talking about that. You argue like you're debating a believer, which suggests you aren't very good at modeling other's views and simply shout your scripted polemics at people without ever actually listening to what they're saying. Nothing about what I wrote can possibly suggest to anyone with any competence in reading comprehension that I'm arguing for the truth of the religious beliefs of Muslims or anyone else.

Maybe it is not quite fair to never eat again in any certain restaurant franchise ever again because I saw one cockroach crawling over the table I was sitting at poised to eat my food.

But my revulsion at that sight was visceral and innate... and just the sign of the franchise evokes that revulsion all over again.

However... Christianity and Islam et al are not a FRANCHISE... or are they?

If the god of the "franchise" is not able to avoid or even clean off the cockroaches in its branches then it is not a god.

And if one continues to go "eat" at the "franchise" of a pathetic non-god who cannot evade cockroaches crawling all over the "food"... then one is a pathetic wretched fool.

And more of the same. It's strange that our intellectual better seems unable to comprehend what others are actually arguing, and wanders off to thrash some straw.

Yup... fallacious apologetics for Islam now too... ah well!!!

The countless victims of Islam and Christianity and Mormonism and Judaism etc. today and throughout the ages would vehemently disagree with your apologetics.

Then I'm sure they'd vehemently disagree with your apologetic in the first post in this thread. You're so bad at argumentation that you can't even avoid scoring own goals.

You've already cited your first post as supposedly disproving the observation of your vitriolic stance. Yet when someone pointed out that there are Christians who are kind, compassionate people, you jumped down his throat. Then when someone else said the same thing, you conceded the point (without ever apologizing to the first person). Now you're back to shouting at people who point out that most religious people aren't like the worst among them. And because you can't actually offer any sort of cogent, reasoned argument, you pretend that anyone who disagrees with your simplistic arguments is an apologist for religion, which is just you beating up strawmen. But by your own poor excuse for argumentation, your first post in this combined thread is a fawning, obsequious apologetic for Christianity simply because you expressed your admiration for the compassionate attitude of the subject of that video.

If you're going to cry "religious apologist" that way you may as well add "I know you are, but what am I?" to your repertoire.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Were you expecting anyone to come down on the, "Human Sacrifice is Okay", side? I generally assume that not being pro human sacrifice is the default setting.

 

[Darat]

Generally one of the reasons we do not like to put threads on Moderated status is that they consume a lot of moderating time, however with so many of the active participants repeatedly breaching their Membership Agreement this thread is already taking up a lot of moderating time so placing it on Moderated status will at least let us catch-up with the current batch of misbehaviour.

As ever do not attempt to get around the moderated status by starting new threads or using older threads to discuss the same topics, all discussion around these topics should remain in this merged and moderated thread.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

 

[MRC_Hans]

Religion is not like a box of apples where one rotten apple does not mean throwing the whole box away.

Why not, actually? What is special about religion that it merits collective guilt?

Religion is supposed to be from a divine source with a divine overseer... if the divine overseer allows mold to permeate through his loaf then he is neither divine nor an intelligent overseer.

Who are you to dictate this standard? Mold has a place in the world, also.

Maybe it is not quite fair to never eat again in any certain restaurant franchise ever again because I saw one cockroach crawling over the table I was sitting at poised to eat my food.

But my revulsion at that sight was visceral and innate... and just the sign of the franchise evokes that revulsion all over again.

Mmm, I advice you not to visit China. However, who demands you eat there again? That is obviously your own choice. What you are not entitled to is claiming that this whole restaurant chain is infested with cockroaches.

However... Christianity and Islam et al are not a FRANCHISE... or are they?

Depends on your viewpoint. I see many religions as franchises.

If the god of the "franchise" is not able to avoid or even clean off the cockroaches in its branches then it is not a god.

That is a rule you are imposing.

And if one continues to go "eat" at the "franchise" of a pathetic non-god who cannot evade cockroaches crawling all over the "food"... then one is a pathetic wretched fool.

See, now you are generalizing. All you saw was a single cockroach, in a single restaurant. Now you claim all the restaurants are crawling with the critters.

Hans