Christianity is a grotesque blight!

[The Man]

(1) No it would not... it is not even an argument... it is a quote that I agree with and which I think is clever and quite right... and expresses my thoughts more eloquently than I would say them.

It is an argument and it argues that it takes religion for good people to do evil things. Otherwise good people would just do good things and evil people do evil things. It doesn’t even remark to evil people doing good things.

(2) It says what I want to say... but since it would be plagiarism otherwise, I ethically cited it.

(3) He has been awarded prizes and appointed president of philosophical institutes... so he is a philosopher... not to mention all the other achievements that make him better than 98% of humanity and better than 100% of popes or bishops or priests or other charlatans people take as authority.

Still doesn’t make it (the argument), him or you correct or even just self-consistent.

(4) So although I am not arguing anything and just quoting his clever incisive and correct observation on REALITY... he is still an authority on philosophical issues as ratified by Philosophical institutes.

You are arguing that, as you put it, the quote is “quite right”.

(5) And this issue of humanity being duped into doing bad things in the name of gods (e.g. Luke 19:27 or Matthew 19:12 or Matthew 8:22 or Matthew 10:34-39 or Matthew 6:25-33 etc. etc. etc.) is definitely a philosophical matter.

Good people (even non- religious) get duped into doing bad things at times or for the sake of doing good but end up doing bad things. Just the nature of the complexity of things and unforeseen (heck perhaps at times even foreseeable) consequences. As both an authority on philosophical issues and a scientist he should know better. With or without religion good people can do evil things and evil people can do good things. It’s just a matter of the criteria used to classify the people and the things done. To make it such that it takes religion to have good people do evil things means those criteria must be applied inconsistently particularly if one already considers religion, just in general, to be evil, .... (insert your own 10 different synonyms for evil here). The reverse noted above as not remarked to would be better, that for evil (religious) people to do good things takes religion, but then only for that specific classification of evil (religious).

 

[Foster Zygote]

Great... so you agree with me that they are pathetic... nice maybe... but fools definitely.

Thanks for agreeing.

No, I do not agree. Being misled or under-informed by others, especially from early childhood, is not synonymous with being pathetic or foolish. That you obviously do is very informative regarding the origins of your arguments.

Why do you feel the need to misrepresent people's words and then declare that they agree with you?

However... have those people ever heard of the vile crimes and lecherous acts and other sordidness of "their religious leaders" on TV or read about them in the newspapers or seen the victims amongst them?

If not then they are not just pathetic fools... they are blind morons too.

I imagine most of them would point out that those persons weren't their leaders. I agree that someone who is confronted with undeniable evidence of a leader breaking their own moral rules, who then ignores that evidence, or makes irrational excuses to dismiss it, is acting foolishly. But if they don't regard that person as one of their leaders (say, a pastor of a church hundreds of miles away) or they decry the actions of the offenders as a violation of their own moral rules and demand their removal from their positions, as well as accountability for those who may have known of and hidden those acts (like many Catholics have done), then they aren't being foolish in the way you describe, and they certainly aren't morons.

And if they have heard of all that and are still following "what their religious leaders tell them"... then they are not nice at all... but still pathetic blind fools.

So if someone regularly donated to a secular charitable organization, and they learned that the director of the organization had been skimming large sums from the donations and taking his mistress to Las Vegas, would that person be a fool to continue donating to charity after the director had been fired, charged, tried and imprisoned?

If you learned that an outspoken advocate for atheism had sexually assaulted someone, would you feel like a pathetic, blind fool for reminding an atheist?

The poor are still poor...
The point is that they can't just will themselves out of poverty. Someone who has been failed by the U.S. education system in a poor school district can't just decide not to be functionally illiterate any more - they can't just spontaneously acquire thinking skills they were never taught.

Similarly, people who have been indoctrinated their whole lives in fundamentalist cults can't be expected to suddenly see the irrationality of what they've been taught.

A battered wife doesn't just divorce her husband because of psychological diseases like the Stockholm Syndrome or numerous others.

And there is another reason too... Jesus and the Catholic and Anglican churches and almost all the other tentacles of the corporation prohibit divorce... so maybe she is a pathetic fool who believes "what her religious leaders tell her".

A battered wife syndrome is in fact very much akin to the syndrome of cult followers who continue to follow the cult leader despite him abusing them as well their nearest and dearest.

I just want to be clear about the fact that you appear to be calling women who suffer through domestic violence morons. Is that your position, Leumas?

 

[Leumas]

It is an argument and it argues that it takes religion for good people to do evil things.

It is a statemen of FACTS not an argument...

For example stating that Jesus of the New Tall tales is a pathetic cultist, is a statement of facts according to the New Tall tales' narrative.

Otherwise good people would just do good things and evil people do evil things. It doesn’t even remark to evil people doing good things.

Yes... lets start listing the various combinations of evil and good and idiots and morons doing things that are whatever... and then we end up with a quotation that instead of being concise and incisive, being rather meaningless and pointless... much like Jesus' human sacrifice and Zombification.

Still doesn’t make it (the argument), him or you correct or even just self-consistent.

It is proven correct and consistent with REALITY to anyone who knows history and Facts of reality... unlike Jesus the buffoon simpleton who thought spittle mixed with dirt can cure blindness and his spit twirled in the ears of the deaf can make them hear again.

<snip for irrelevance>

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Edited by Agatha: 

Moderated Thread

Why won't you answer my simple questions Leumas? Three of them were just yes/no questions, but you won't answer them, you'll just loudly declare that we are all wrong and you're right and blah blah blah. Honestly it's boring.

 

[Little 10 Toes]

Go read my post again... I did not cite your context either... I cited nothing... you are the one who chose to cite one place and not the other.

Yes. I guessed what you were citing. Guesses can be wrong. Perhaps you can provide the other cite please?

Nope... the quotation marks are for Jesus' words...

That is because the quotes are for what Jesus' words are.

No. Double quotation marks are often for direct quotes, single are often for (lack of a better term) quotes of quotes.

Referencing this link (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke 14&version=NKJV), verse 26 starts with a direct quote from Jesus because it starts with a double quotation mark. Those are his words. Verse 30 has a single quotation mark because Jesus is quoting someone. In that case it (the source of the quote) is people mocking another person and Jesus is quoting the other people.

Whether Jesus wants to "alienate" father from his son and daughter from her mother... or set them against each other.... the conclusion is that Jesus is a heinous cultist who alienates kin and kith from each other or sets them against each other... a vile thing to do.

Again, you said hate. The verses do not support your argument. Perhaps you can list the second cite we can discuss some more. If you can find out what Jesus was quoting, that would help as well.

Seriously? You do not see any problem of a son abandoning his dead father's body and not bother to bury it so as to go follow a cult leader hoboing about?

Well, before I answer that I need to make a sandwich. Oh, then I need to do laundry, then I need to go to hospital... I kid, I think I need to go to hospital before I have that sandwich. Want to make sure the pain killers aren't diluted by my ham sandwich.

My interpretation is twofold. One, dead are dead, they have no more problems. I've met a few people who don't care what happens to their bodies when they die. Two, if you're going to be a disciple, commit whole heartily. Do it now, not later, not in a bit. (See laundry/hospital/sandwich bit above.)

Yes... it is ... and Jesus said it is a thing to do for the sake of his kingdom of heaven... a pretty sordid thing to say.

Did you miss the part in the verse about if you are able to accept it? I don't accept the idea of losing my testicles. Don't have to do it.

Good... but are you a christian?

I'm either a Muslim living in Salt Lake City, a practicing Non-Reformed Druid in Vietnam, an Orthodox Pagan down in Johannesburg, a new Discordian in the Silicon Valley, a Pastafarian based in Milan, a follower of the Path of Humanity in Finland, a shaman in Yorkshire, a voodoo priestess in Buenos Aires, a Baptist in Ramstein Air Base, an Anglican in Montserrat, or none of the above. You pick. There is a Greek Orthodox church that I might visit. I haven't heard Greek before. I've seen a Serbian Orthodox church from the outside. Looks pretty with the windows. Might want to see the inside one day. And why does it matter? You are presenting an argument and I am countering it.

And... as you have proven above... you are irrefragably wrong about that... as evinced by your attempt to argue that setting a father against his son is different from alienating a father against his son and not seeing anything wrong with that.

No, you claimed the Bible said "Jesus tells people to hate their dearest and nearest for his sake... one where the cult members must hate their parents and even their lives." (Here's the post: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=14115339#post14115339) It didn't. There is no word "hate" in the verses I presented. In addition, Jesus is quoting someone/something. If we can find out what he was quoting, that would further our discussion.

And in the same post you said, "he wants people to even hate and mutilate their bodies." Again, no. The verses quoted do not say what you claim.

I really don't care what your religious beliefs are, just like you shouldn't care what mine are. We should be looking at the topic/claim. One of the things that irks me is when you make your arguments, your sources do not say what you think they say. Claiming a source says something that it doesn't, that seems wrong to me.

Please either update your claim to match your data, or update your data to match your claim.

 

[jsfisher]

In the verses, I see quotation marks. Jesus is quoting someone/something. Matthew and the KJV/NKJV do not refer to what Jesus is quoting.

Nope... the quotation marks are for Jesus' words...

Jesus is making use of the words of Micah (Micah 7:6).

 

[junkshop]

...That doesn't mean all Christians are vile or bad of course...

..."Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." ― Steven Weinberg...

I have no idea who this Weinburg chap is, and without any explanation of how he reached this conclusion I can give it no weight. It is nothing more than the unsupported opinion of a stranger on the internet...

From here...

Ok, now I know who he is.

His opinion remains unsupported...

That would be an argument from incorrect authority then...

(1) No it would not... it is not even an argument... it is a quote that I agree with and which I think is clever and quite right... and expresses my thoughts more eloquently than I would say them...

(3) He has been awarded prizes and appointed president of philosophical institutes... so he is a philosopher...

(4) ...he is still an authority on philosophical issues as ratified by Philosophical institutes...


...Whatever y'all believe in is immaterial... I am arguing against your statements as written down in your posts... which are wrong as evinced by FACTS.


...I do not care who they are or where they go... I care about what their posts say and I am arguing against the content of those posts which are definitively wrong... as evinced by FACTS.

...And y'all would be clearly and definitively wrong... as evinced by FACTS...

He was awarded prizes, but not for philosophy - for physics.
From the Wikipedia page you linked to...


The American Philosophical Society was founded in the 18th century, when...


The one and only philosophical institute that he was appointed president of, the Philosophical Society of Texas, has this to say about him...


He was not a philosopher, he was a scientist.


Oh, and by the way, the full name of the Benjamin Franklin Medal is 'The Benjamin Franklin Medal for Distinguished Achievement in the Sciences'.

One does not need to be an authority to comment on the FACTS OF REALITY... unlike Jesus who got those FACTS all wrong and lied about many of them.

And Steven Weinberg was a 1000,000 times more sane a philosopher...[irrelevant rant snipped]...
However... as I said... whether you think he is or not an authority is immaterial because I quoted him for the content of what he said which any rational person who knows history and reality knows is irrefragably incisive.

(Highlighting mine)

That you agree with a thing someone said once does not make that thing a FACT, but you are clearly a fan of FACTS. This is good.

Edited by Agatha: 

Moderated Thread

 

[Leumas]

One does not need to be an authority to comment on the FACTS OF REALITY... unlike Jesus who got those FACTS all wrong and lied about many of them.

And Steven Weinberg was a 1000,000 times more sane a philosopher...[irrelevant rant snipped]...
However... as I said... whether you think he is or not an authority is immaterial because I quoted him for the content of what he said which any rational person who knows history and reality knows is irrefragably incisive.

(Highlighting mine)

That you agree with a thing someone said once does not make that thing a FACT, but you are clearly a fan of FACTS. This is good.

Edited by Agatha: 

Moderated Thread

[/I]

If you read my post carefully... you will noticed this part

...
However... as I said... whether you think he is or not an authority is immaterial because I quoted him for the content of what he said which any rational person who knows history and reality knows is irrefragably incisive.

So it is NOT that I agree with him that makes what he said FACT... rather... what he says IS fact and that is why I agree with him... as would any rational person who knows history and current affairs of REALITY.

What he says is attested to by HISTORICAL FACTS as well as daily current affairs of REALITY.

And that is why I agree with him... because FACTS OF REALITY and historical facts attest to what he says as fact.

One does not need to be an authority to comment on the FACTS OF REALITY... unlike Jesus who got those FACTS all wrong and lied about many of them.

And Steven Weinberg was a 1000,000 times more sane a philosopher...[irrelevant rant snipped]...
However... as I said... whether you think he is or not an authority is immaterial because I quoted him for the content of what he said which any rational person who knows history and reality knows is irrefragably incisive.

Furthermore... you snipped off a part of my post that you deemed "irrelevant" when in fact it is very crucially relevant.

...
And Steven Weinberg was a 1000,000 times more sane a philosopher than the popes or bishops... who believe that the creator of the universe is a slave mongering ethnic cleansing racist who loves Sumerian pimps above all of humanity and decided to inveigle a little married descendant of said Sumerian pimps to let him shove 1/3rd of himself inside her to sit there twiddling his thumbs for 9 months and then come out to yet again do nothing for 30 more years... not even lift a thumb to stave off the massacre of children he caused with his avarice for gold and incompetence in devising correctly functioning GPStars....

The relevance is that it proves how

• "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." ― Steven Weinberg

 

[Leumas]

Why won't you answer my simple questions Leumas?

Because they are "simple" questions MarkCorrigan!

... you'll just loudly declare that we are all wrong and you're right and blah blah blah. Honestly it's boring.

The Truth is usually found to be boring by those who do not like it... but it still remains to be THE Truth.

 

[The Man]

It is a statemen of FACTS not an argument...

A purported statement of fact is an argument that said statement is in fact a, well, fact. This case, it is clearly not. People who think themselves good do bad **** with or without religion.

For example stating that Jesus of the New Tall tales is a pathetic cultist, is a statement of facts according to the New Tall tales' narrative.

Likewise, a purported statement of fact, by some, and now even you, are they facts? Was there even in fact a Jesus who did or even condoned such things?

Yes... lets start listing the various combinations of evil and good and idiots and morons doing things that are whatever... and then we end up with a quotation that instead of being concise and incisive, being rather meaningless and pointless... much like Jesus' human sacrifice and Zombification.

As I recall Jesus was suppose to replace the mercy shield on the arc of the covenant that required blood sacrifices (animal mostly) to hide the sins of man from god. My knowledge is rather limited to the Sunday radio shows I’d listen to in the car on the way home from work, of the religious that would try to explain such things.

While good and evil originate form each other in some eastern philosophies it doesn’t change that people both good and evil do **** that might be counter to that general classification of them. Not “meaningless and pointless” at all but “concise” in said classifications of people and their actions. How do you classify someone as evil if not for what they do? What they think of themselves and their actions? It’s a basic classification error, that religion is needed for good people to do bad things, people thinking of themselves as good but doing bad ****. While ignoring people who are just pieces of **** (been one) doing some good.

It is proven correct and consistent with REALITY to anyone who knows history and Facts of reality... unlike Jesus the buffoon simpleton who thought spittle mixed with dirt can cure blindness and his spit twirled in the ears of the deaf can make them hear again.

Not in the least, again just a basic classification error, (sorry in philosophy a category mistake) any philosopher or scientist should know. Taking what the people think of themselves to classify them as good and then applying a different criteria to their actions to classify those as bad, evil or whatever synonyms anyone wants. With consistent criteria, generally good people can do bad **** and generally pieces of **** can do good, religion is simply not required in either case. It’s a superfluous inclusion to just further note the distain for religion already given at the beginning of the quote. That’s where the assertion and argumentation fails, again, particularly for those that consider religion and those subsumed by it, as just generally evil even without their knowledge.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Because they are "simple" questions MarkCorrigan!

I think we can all be honest about the fact that your quotation marks are used as a way of implying that MarkCorrigan's questions are stupid. But are they really? Or do they follow naturally from what you've previously written by way of "argument" in this thread?

Lets look at them:

1. Do you think that if I said that the GOPs attempts to purge their party of those who are "disloyal" to Trump is similar to the purges carried out by Stalin I am saying that the GOP are Stalinist or Communist?

2. Do you think that any of us here are Christian? (I know a few are, but it's clear the question is asked in regard to atheists participating in this thread whom you seem to have implied are Christian because they don't validate everything you say.)

3. Do you think that stating that your arguments are poor means that we are defending Christianity?

I don't see anything "simple" (i.e. stupid) about those queries, especially in the context of your statements that caused them to be asked. So it seems possible that you're insulting evaluation of their relevance is more an evasion than a dismissal. That leads to the question of why you would want to evade those questions. Are you concerned that your answers would be perceived as "simple"?

 

[junkshop]

...That you agree with a thing someone said once does not make that thing a FACT...

... it is not even an argument... it is a quote that I agree with and which I think is clever and quite right... and expresses my thoughts more eloquently than I would say them.

(2) It says what I want to say... but since it would be plagiarism otherwise, I ethically cited it...

_{(Bolding mine)}

If you read my post carefully... you will noticed this part

...However... as I said... whether you think he is or not an authority is immaterial because I quoted him for the content of what he said which any rational person who knows history and reality knows is irrefragably incisive.

I'm not seeing any cogent argument or evidence there to support this:

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." ― Steven Weinberg

So it remains just the opinion of some guy.


To reiterate, then:

...That you agree with a thing someone said once does not make that thing a FACT...

 

[Thor 2]

So it remains just the opinion of some guy.


To reiterate, then:

An opinion supported by mountains of evidence.

 

[Wudang]

An opinion supported by mountains of evidence.

Indeed but it's still important to differentiate between opinion and evidence.

 

[Leumas]

_{(Bolding mine)}

But yet again you did not quote the important part of the post... which shows how Christianity is an absurd turpitude and indeed an insult to reason and rationality and decency.

So it remains just the opinion of some guy.

So... do you think that it is not

An opinion supported by mountains of evidence.

And by a guy whose discarded rubbish is more rational and decent than all the foppish popes and dastardly bishops that ever existed???

Do you not think that...

• "...for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." ― Steven Weinberg

And do you not think that believing that the creator of the universe is a racist ethnic cleansing slave mongering voodoo rituals prescribing lover of Sumerian Pimps... who raped a little married descendant of said Pimps in order to make a Zombified Human Sacrifice ill begotten son with her... is

• "... an insult to human dignity.... ― Steven Weinberg

 

[Leumas]

An opinion supported by mountains of evidence.

Indeed...

Great... then you do agree that Christianity

• "... is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." ― Steven Weinberg

...but it's still important to differentiate between opinion and evidence.

Good... I wish that distinction was fathomed by the foppish Popes and the dastardly bishops and the Anglican and Catholic churches and all of the tentacles of the global pyramid scheme called Christianity.

Those, people grifted their obscene wealth by peddling OPINIONS utterly devoid of any evidence and in fact with oodles of evidence riving asunder their pathetically risible opinions... namely that their god is a Zombified human sacrificed ill begotten son of a celestial ethnic cleansing, slave mongering, voodoo rituals prescribing, witches proscribing, lover of Sumerian pimps and charlatans.

 

[Wudang]

You say the distinction is important then give your opinions again. May I suggest
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/454614.A_Rulebook_for_Arguments

 

[erwinl]

Great... then you do agree that Christianity

• "... is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." ― Steven Weinberg

Good... I wish that distinction was fathomed by the foppish Popes and the dastardly bishops and the Anglican and Catholic churches and all of the tentacles of the global pyramid scheme called Christianity.

Those, people grifted their obscene wealth by peddling OPINIONS utterly devoid of any evidence and in fact with oodles of evidence riving asunder their pathetically risible opinions... namely that their god is a Zombified human sacrificed ill begotten son of a celestial ethnic cleansing, slave mongering, voodoo rituals prescribing, witches proscribing, lover of Sumerian pimps and charlatans.

Have you ever thought of asking the Pope about his opinion, concerning this?
Maybe you can even convince him! Stranger things have happened, so it might be worth a try.

 

[Leumas]

You say the distinction is important then give your opinions again....

The FACT that the Catholic Church is a hoax along with all the scads of sub-cults of the detestable cult of worship of human blood sacrifice is not an opinion.

The fact that the foppish bishops and other buffoons who serve them and fleece and hoodwink the simpletons who believe their peddled lies... are peddling insane turpitude that is an insult to rationality and decency, is not an opinion.

The facts that the fops and the charlatans and their imbecilic victims all worship a Zombified human sacrificed ill begotten son of a celestial slave mongering, ethnic cleansing, voodoo rituals prescribing, witches proscribing, magic potions commanding, racist lover of Sumerian PIMPS is not an opinion.

The facts of heinous and numerous crimes committed in the name of the turpitude called Jesus and his scum of a deadbeat sky daddy throughout history and in current affairs is not an opinion.

Stating FACTS that are proven by oodles of historical facts and by facts of reality and rationality and science and decency is not an opinion.

 

[Leumas]

Have you ever thought of asking the Pope about his opinion, concerning this?
Maybe you can even convince him! Stranger things have happened, so it might be worth a try.

Have you? You try it first!

But... what do you think will be the result?

If the POPE says he does not believe the arrantly insane claptrap of the Jesus farcical and self-admitted (Luke 16:31) pointless (2 Chronicles 7:14) melodrama... then he is hoaxing billions of simpletons.

And if he says he believes it... then he is an abject imbecile just like the billions he is grifting.

So you go ask him and find out which.... is the Catholic Corporate CEO an abject imbecile... or a psychopathic predator???