Christianity is a grotesque blight!

[Leumas]

While a red apple isn't, so any apple can be green but may not be.

But when the apple is green it is a valid statement of fact to say that it IS.

Much like this is a statement of facts about reality and history...

• "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

...what criteria makes these people doing evil things good people?

When they are good people but their evil deeds are done by following the tenets and edicts and commandments of a grotesque blight called Christianity...

For example...

• refusing to sell products to certain people because god said so
• destroying the lives of girls and women by aiding and abetting the machinations of installing venal self-prostituting whores, dissimulating being judges, on the supreme court.
• financing, aiding, and abetting ethnic cleansing and apartheid
• financing wars to precipitate Armageddon
• not to mention the litany of vile and evil acts done by good people in the name of Christianity throughout the millennia of this grotesque blight

Evidently, just evil people doing evil things.

When those "evil people doing evil things" are financed and revered and enabled and abetted by good people because of these good people's mind-corruption by the grotesque blight called Christianity... then those good people are doing evil things because of their religion.

So now your statement that is not your statement "is" an argument? When you were arguing before that it wasn't even an argument?

Nope... it was you and others erroneously arguing that quoting is only an opinion and not an argument.

And, to stress your errors further, one of you advised me to read a book of opinions thinking incorrectly that it shows how quoting is not a valid argument.

But, the book he cited proved y'all wrong... by stating that even an anonymously quoted comedian's quote is an argument.

Even jokes can be arguments, though the reasons may seem silly.
Living on earth may be tough, but it includes a free ride
around the sun every year.1
_________________
1. Anonymous, Cool Funny Quotes, http://coolfunnyquotes.com. Accessed 2/6/17

However, I did not quote Steven Weinberg as an argument in the first place... go back and read the post where I quoted him and see why I did so and in response to what.

And as I repeatedly said... it is a concise, pithy and factual statement stated by a person who is more worthy of quoting than all the popes and bishops and theologians and Jesus or the other charlatans of all the religions, let alone an anonymous comedian.

And it is a valid statement because it is evinced by REALITY and FACTS of history.

So it is not an argument... it is a STATEMENT OF FACTS about reality and history.

You didn't say the statement wasn't your statement and then include it as one of your statements?

You didn't argue that the not your statement that is now your statement wasn't even an argument and now proclaim "hence... it IS." an argument?

What???

 

[jsfisher]

Much like this is a statement of facts about reality and history...

* "Religion is an insult to human dignity.

Not fact at all. That is an opinion.

With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things.

More of a tautology. A fact, but without substance.

But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

How would you prove such a thing? Looks like just more opinion. Mix in a little no-true-Scotsman-fallacy, and it moves towards a wannabe tautology, without substance but not a fact.

So, all in all, the Steven Weinberg quote you so often repeat is not at all insightful, just a clever-sounding rehash of anti-religion dogma.

 

[The Man]

But when the apple is green it is a valid statement of fact to say that it IS.

Much like this is a statement of facts about reality and history...

• "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

• 
  
  
  And still as self-inconsistent and generally inconsistent as when written.
  
  
  

  But
  
  When they are good people but their evil deeds are done by following the tenets and edicts and commandments of a grotesque blight called Christianity...
  
  For example...
  

  • refusing to sell products to certain people because god said so
  • destroying the lives of girls and women by aiding and abetting the machinations of installing venal self-prostituting whores, dissimulating being judges, on the supreme court.
  • financing, aiding, and abetting ethnic cleansing and apartheid
  • financing wars to precipitate Armageddon
  • not to mention the litany of vile and evil acts done by good people in the name of Christianity throughout the millennia of this grotesque blight

  
  Again, evidently not good people.
  
  

  When those "evil people doing evil things" are financed and revered and enabled and abetted by good people because of these good people's mind-corruption by the grotesque blight called Christianity... then those good people are doing evil things because of their religion.

  
  Again, making them just evil people by those actions. That people may think of themselves as good doesn't stop them from doing bad things and it certainly doesn't take religion for people who think of themselves as good and who may generally do good things to end up doing bad things.
  
  
  

  Nope... it was you and others erroneously arguing that quoting is only an opinion and not an argument.

  
  I never said any such thing, I told you it was an argument from the start, but Just that it was a self-inconsistent and generally inconsistent one. Which you then argued against it even being an argument.
  
  
  

  And, to stress your errors further, one of you advised me to read a book of opinions thinking incorrectly that it shows how quoting is not a valid argument.
  
  But, the book he cited proved y'all wrong... by stating that even an anonymously quoted comedian's quote is an argument.

  
  Again "can be" not "is". Again I've said your quote was an argument from the start.
  
  
  
  

  However, I did not quote Steven Weinberg as an argument in the first place... go back and read the post where I quoted him and see why I did so and in response to what.

  
  In the first place, in the last place, in the second place, it doesn't change a thing it is still making the erroneous argument that it takes religion for good people to do evil things. Why you posted it is irrelevant to that.
  
  

  And as I repeatedly said... it is a concise, pithy and factual statement stated by a person who is more worthy of quoting than all the popes and bishops and theologians and Jesus or the other charlatans of all the religions, let alone an anonymous comedian.
  
  And it is a valid statement because it is evinced by REALITY and FACTS of history.

  
  Self-inconsistent and generally inconsistent assertions don't make for good arguments.
  
  

  So it is not an argument... it is a STATEMENT OF FACTS about reality and history.

  
  Again a purported "STATEMENT OF FACTS about reality and history is an argument that said "STATEMENT" is "OF FACTS about reality and history".
  
  

  What???

  
  Is that an opinion or a "STATEMENT OF FACTS about reality and history?"
  
  Nothing for you to be confused about, you either made those statements and arguments or you didn't.
  
  Your assertions have gone from “it is not even an argument” to it “IS” an argument and now back to “it is not an argument”.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Leumas, do you think most of your interlocutors are Christians?

Do you think that disagreement with some of what you say and the way you say it is defending Christianity, even when the poster makes no comment on the truth claims of Christianity?

Do you think it is possible to both disagree with Christianity and disagree with you?

Well Leumas? I'd really like an answer to my questions please.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Yes they can.... for example every single cult leader ever... say like Jesus and David Koresh and Paul and Martin Luther and Joseph Smith and Jim Jones and Muhammad etc. etc. etc... not to mention of every dastardly Bishop and priest of Christianity and their head CEOs of the Global Human Sacrifice Cult.

I meant to ask, where does the subject of your first post in this thread fit in with the above? Is he a grand gentleman, an eagle, soaring high above the stench and putridity, beckoning the rest to shatter their mental shackles and to relinquish their clenching onto their palls of benightedness, so as to join him in the fresh air of mental elevation? Or is he just another dastardly priest of the global human sacrifice cult of Christianity?

 

[Leumas]

Not fact at all. That is an opinion.

Your opinion that it is not fact is wrong... as evinced by the arrant evidence of REALITY.

Do you think believing that the maker of the universe and everything in it prefers above all of humanity some Sumerian pimps and grifters and commands them to extirpate other humans in order to ethnically cleanse their lands and wrench it from their dead hands... is not an insult to human dignity?

Do you think commanding that people castrate themselves for the sake of their cult leader's delusional Kingdom of Heaven... is not an insult to human dignity?

Do you think the Catholic Church and the Anglican Church and the other tentacles of the grotesque blight called Christianity, are not and have always been an insult to human dignity?

How would you prove such a thing?

By reading history and news papers and listening to the news... you (I think) argued many times that most Christians are good people...

But yet... a majority of these good people support wholeheartedly and fervently...

• refusing to sell products to certain people because god said so
• destroying the lives of girls and women by aiding and abetting the machinations of installing venal self-prostituting whores, dissimulating being judges, on the supreme court.
• financing, aiding, and abetting ethnic cleansing and apartheid
• financing wars to precipitate Armageddon
• not to mention the litany of vile and evil acts done by good people in the name of Christianity throughout the millennia of this grotesque blight

Looks like just more opinion.

Look again... at FACTS of history and also at facts of REALITY... you will see that your opinion that it is only an opinion is arrantly wrong.

So, all in all, the Steven Weinberg quote you so often repeat is not at all insightful, just a clever-sounding rehash of anti-religion dogma.

The arrant evidence of reality and history proves your opinion arrantly errant.

 

[Leumas]

And still as self-inconsistent and generally inconsistent as when written.

Your opinion is arrantly wrong... as evinced by the arrant evidence of history and reality.

Again, evidently not good people.

So you are saying that it is your opinion that the majority of Christians including the Pope and Bishops and clergy etc. etc. are all "not good people"???

I disagree with your opinion.

Again, making them just evil people by those actions. That people may think of themselves as good doesn't stop them from doing bad things and it certainly doesn't take religion for people who think of themselves as good and who may generally do good things to end up doing bad things.

Again... your opinion is wrong.

I never said any such thing, I told you it was an argument from the start, but Just that it was a self-inconsistent and generally inconsistent one. Which you then argued against it even being an argument.

Your opinion is wrong... statements of FACT are not an argument... it is irrational to argue against arrantly evinced FACTS.

Again "can be" not "is". Again I've said your quote was an argument from the start.

Again... can be... IS... when it manages to be... once it be, as it can be... it... well... IS.

Your opinion cannot be correct and is not correct.

In the first place, in the last place, in the second place, it doesn't change a thing it is still making the erroneous argument that it takes religion for good people to do evil things. Why you posted it is irrelevant to that.

And your opinion is wrong...

Self-inconsistent and generally inconsistent assertions don't make for good arguments.

Yes... you are right there... and that is why the bare assertions in your post are not a good argument.

Again a purported "STATEMENT OF FACTS about reality and history is an argument that said "STATEMENT" is "OF FACTS about reality and history".

That is your opinion... and I say it is wrong...

Is that an opinion or a "STATEMENT OF FACTS about reality and history?"

Nothing for you to be confused about, you either made those statements and arguments or you didn't.

Your assertions have gone from “it is not even an argument” to it “IS” an argument and now back to “it is not an argument”.

 

[jsfisher]

Your opinion that it is not fact is wrong... as evinced by the arrant evidence of REALITY.

Let's see. The statement in question was: "Religion is an insult to human dignity." Whether anything is an insult would be a matter of opinion. In some cases it can be a very strong opinion, but an opinion nonetheless. What constitutes human dignity is also a matter of opinion. So, opinion compounded on opinion. No facts to be found.

You go on to cite a few examples of some people doing things that, in your opinion, are an insult to human dignity. Even granting your opinion as fact, though, that only gets you some people acting under the color of religion. It doesn't get you to all followers of the religion, and it certainly falls far short of the religion in its entirety. Observing one bad cop does not condemn all of law enforcement.

You eventually demanded:

Look again... at FACTS of history and also at facts of REALITY... you will see that your opinion that it is only an opinion is arrantly wrong.

The statement in question was "But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." I challenged it with "How would you prove such a thing? Looks like just more opinion. Mix in a little no-true-Scotsman-fallacy, and it moves towards a wannabe tautology, without substance but not a fact."

You cite no "FACTS of history" to prove you claim. Only to be expected, though, since how would you prove someone to be good by any quantitative measure only to become provably evil in the presence of religion? Moreover, how would you show the total absence of anyone transitioning from provably good to provably evil without religion involvement?

So, all in all, the Steven Weinberg quote you cherish (almost as a religion) is not at all insightful, just a clever-sounding rehash of anti-religion dogma.


Leumas, your passion is obvious, and your logic is faulty. You repeatedly conclude all-A-are-B from a jaundiced observation of some-A-are-B.

 

[Wudang]

There is a world of a difference between establishing something to your own satisfaction and establishing it to others satisfaction.

 

[The Man]

Your opinion is arrantly wrong... as evinced by the arrant evidence of history and reality.

Do you mean the list of examples you gave before that work just as well without the religious connotations?

So you are saying that it is your opinion that the majority of Christians including the Pope and Bishops and clergy etc. etc. are all "not good people"???

Nope, since I don’t consider religion to just be inherently evil and the examples you gave were of acts, that could be the same even without the religious connotations.

I disagree with your opinion.

Great, so I’ll ask again, since you didn’t answer the last time, what makes these people doing these things in your examples good people?

Again... your opinion is wrong.

Fantastic, so again what makes the people doing such things good people and why wouldn’t the examples still work without the deliberate and superfluous religious connotations?

Your opinion is wrong... statements of FACT are not an argument... it is irrational to argue against arrantly evinced FACTS.

Again it is an argument that the statement is of facts.

Again... can be... IS... when it manages to be... once it be, as it can be... it... well... IS.

And not when it isn’t, tautologies are not informative. Can be just means that it could be not that it is. To just swap one for the other is just begging the question.

Your opinion cannot be correct and is not correct.

While your assertions that the quote is not even an argument, then “IS” and argument, then not an argument again is just self-contradictory spin, like a whirling dervish

And your opinion is wrong...

Fantastic, so for what reason should why you posted it change what the quote simply says.

Yes... you are right there... and that is why the bare assertions in your post are not a good argument.

Excellent, so now you understand why your cited quotation is not a good argument.

Hint: proclaiming that it isn’t even an argument also makes it not a good argument.

That is your opinion... and I say it is wrong...

Perfect, then you can explain how a purported statement of facts is not an argument that they are indeed facts and not just begging the question?

 

[The Man]

Let's see. The statement in question was: "Religion is an insult to human dignity." Whether anything is an insult would be a matter of opinion. In some cases it can be a very strong opinion, but an opinion nonetheless. What constitutes human dignity is also a matter of opinion. So, opinion compounded on opinion. No facts to be found.

That's the real crux of all of this jsfisher, dignity and the perception thereof. Along with the willingness to do just terrible things to maintain, restore or just project that dignity. Whether it be the dignity of one's self-esteem, social, economic or relationship status. Work, family, home and avocation status. The dignity of life, death, national, ethnic, gender and, yes, even religious status.

Human dignity should be able to take some insults and still remain dignified.

 

[Leumas]

There is a world of a difference between establishing something to your own satisfaction and establishing it to others satisfaction.

Facts are not a matter of opinion... nor a matter of majority vote... nor a matter of feelings.

That is why science is successful and elevates humanity with its achievements ... because it seeks and establishes FACTS regardless of the "satisfaction" of one or many... and the scientific method is setup precisely to overcome the subjectivity of the "satisfaction" of any.

Conversely... that is why religion is an abysmal codswallop and a detriment to humanity... because it is all about one's "satisfaction" with one's delusions... but even more sordidly and insulting... the extent to which this one imbecile managed to dupe others to their "satisfaction" in his self-satisfying delusion.

• "The whole religious complexion of the modern world is due to the absence from Jerusalem of a lunatic asylum." ― Thomas Paine

 

[Leumas]

... The dignity of life, death, national, ethnic, gender and, yes, even religious status.

Dignity of ethnic status?

• Matthew 15:22-27 ...a woman of Canaan ... cried unto him... But he answered her not a word... But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel..... It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs
• Exodus 34:12-14 ...ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves: For thou shalt worship no other god: for YHWH, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.

Dignity of religious status?

• Leviticus 21:9 And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire.
• Deuteronomy 22:20-21 ... the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel......stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house.

Dignity of gender status?

• 1 Timothy 2:11-15 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
• Deuteronomy 25:11-12 When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets; then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall have no pity.
• Numbers 31:1-18 And YHWH spake unto Moses, saying, ... kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Dignity of national status?

• Exodus 22:30 And ye shall be holy men unto Me; therefore ye shall not eat any flesh that is torn of beasts in the field; ye shall cast it to the dogs
• Deuteronomy 14:21 Ye shall not eat of any thing that dieth of itself; thou mayest give it unto the stranger that is within thy gates, that he may eat it; or thou mayest sell it unto a foreigner; for thou art a holy people unto YHWH thy God
• Deuteronomy 20:16-18 But of the cities of these people, which YHWH thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as YHWH thy God hath commanded thee: That they teach you not to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their gods; so should ye sin against YHWH your God.

Dignity of death?

• Psalms 137:9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the rock
  
• Psalms 68:23-24 The Lord said: ....that thy foot may wade through blood, that the tongue of thy dogs may have its portion from thine enemies.

Dignity of life?

• Matthew 19:12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
• 1 Peter 2:18-21 Slaves, submit to your masters with due respect, not only to those who are kind and forbearing but also to those who are harsh. It is a sign of grace if you endure the pain of unjust suffering because of your awareness of God.
• John 15:20 Remember the word that I spoke to you: ‘No slave is greater than his master.’’

...
Human dignity should be able to take some insults and still remain dignified.

• 1 Corinthians 1:19-21 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent... it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
• 1 Corinthians 1:21... it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
• 1 Corinthians 1:27-28 God chose those who were regarded as foolish by the world to shame the wise; God chose those in the world who were weak to shame the strong. God chose those in the world who were lowly and despised, those who count for nothing, to reduce to nothing those who were regarded as worthy, so that no one could boast in the presence of God.
• Matthew 11:25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.
• Proverbs 3:5 Trust in YHWH with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
• Ezekiel 14:9 And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I YHWH have deceived that prophet...

 

[Leumas]

Leumas, do you think most of your interlocutors are Christians?

Not most... just the ones who do apologetics for christianity and defend the apologists of christianity and the ones who claim to be "cultural christians" and the ones who claim to be christians and the ones who claim to be theists for the god (or gods) of christianity.... and the ones who use apologetics techniques.

Do you think that disagreement with some of what you say and the way you say it is defending Christianity,

When it is utterly baseless and arrantly wrong "disagreement" and is nothing more than errant language nitpicking and nothing to do with the topic of the OP... then yes.

even when the poster makes no comment on the truth claims of Christianity?

And therein lies the rub... making such comments would be on topic and a proper disagreement... arrantly errant language nitpicking is not a disagreement but rather apologetics techniques.

Do you think that disagreement with some of what you say

Have you done that? Please cite where you have done that... I have not seen it yet.

and the way you say it is defending Christianity,

Logical fallacies are apologetics techniques.

even when the poster makes no comment on the truth claims of Christianity?

And therein lies the rub... making such comments would be on topic and a proper disagreement... arrantly errant language nitpicking is not a disagreement but rather apologetics techniques.

Do you think it is possible to both disagree with Christianity and disagree with you?

It depends on what you are disagreeing with me on... if you disagree with christianity and disagree with me on my disagreement with christianity then there is a bit of a logic problem there.

If you disagree with me on subjects that have nothing to do with the topic of discussion and are nothing but arrantly errant language nitpicking... then this would be an apologetics technique.

 

[Leumas]

It would be preferable to get rid of those who think they fall into a class of 'betters'.

Don't Christians think they are saved and are therefore "better" than those who are not?

At the very least I am sure Christians and other delusions worshipping imbeciles think they are "better" than atheists.

Christians think they are "better" than Jews and Muslims and Hindus... and vice versa... no?

So what you are saying is "it is preferable to get rid" of Christians and pretty much all theists... no?

 

[Foster Zygote]

Still curious to know the answer to my question about the Reverend Ed Trevors.

 

[Steve]

Don't Christians think they are saved and are therefore "better" than those who are not?

At the very least I am sure Christians and other delusions worshipping imbeciles think they are "better" than atheists.

Christians think they are "better" than Jews and Muslims and Hindus... and vice versa... no?

So what you are saying is "it is preferable to get rid" of Christians and pretty much all theists... no?

Every religion, as you say, thinks that they are "better" than non-adherents. And no small number of atheists, even some here, think they are "better" than the religious. "Getting rid" of people accomplishes nothing (as the German Nazis found out).

 

[Foster Zygote]

Don't Christians think they are saved and are therefore "better" than those who are not?

Does someone who thinks they know where the emergency exits are located necessarily think they are better than others?

The fact that so many Christians are trying to convince others to accept the same claim of salvation that they do would suggest that they think others are just as worthy of saving as themselves.

 

[jsfisher]

Don't Christians think they are saved and are therefore "better" than those who are not?

At the very least I am sure Christians and other delusions worshipping imbeciles think they are "better" than atheists.

Christians think they are "better" than Jews and Muslims and Hindus... and vice versa... no?

So what you are saying is "it is preferable to get rid" of Christians and pretty much all theists... no?

Ok, what is it that you are saying? Are you better than Christians? I am curious as to what measure one should use to assess one individual as better than another. It doesn't seem like a single dimension would suffice.

Be that as it may, you have this deep-rooted hatred for Christianity and all things Christian; what would you have done with them?

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Not most... just the ones who do apologetics for christianity and defend the apologists of christianity and the ones who claim to be "cultural christians" and the ones who claim to be christians and the ones who claim to be theists for the god (or gods) of christianity.... and the ones who use apologetics techniques.

But you see literally any disagreement with anything you say as apologetics for Christianity even when it's nothing of the sort.

"Most Christians don't think the way you're claiming" is not apologetics for Christianity.

"You've not presented facts but opinion" is not apologetics for Christianity.

In fact I've yet to see anyone post any apologetics for Christianity in any of your threads but maybe I've missed them. Please, highlight the best examples you've seen.

When it is utterly baseless and arrantly wrong "disagreement" and is nothing more than errant language nitpicking and nothing to do with the topic of the OP... then yes.

You've never shown anyone was obviously wrong, you've just claimed it and attempted to walk away in triumph.

It's not nitpicking to point out that your communication is incorrect because you're not using the correct words.

And therein lies the rub... making such comments would be on topic and a proper disagreement... arrantly errant language nitpicking is not a disagreement but rather apologetics techniques.

Again, no it isn't. Even if we accept that correcting your dreadful word choice was nitpicking, that doesn't make it apologetics. Apologetics is defending the arguments made by a religion, in this case Christianity.

Quoting the works of Thomas Aquinas is apologetics. Stating that you are using the word "arrant" wrong is not.

Logical fallacies are apologetics techniques.

No, they aren't. Many apologetics arguments are logical fallacies, but that doesn't mean making a logical fallacy is always an apologetic.

Please highlight any logical fallacies people have made. I've certainly seen you claim people are making them, but since this usually boils down to "they said something you don't like" forgive me if I don't take your word for it.

It depends on what you are disagreeing with me on... if you disagree with christianity and disagree with me on my disagreement with christianity then there is a bit of a logic problem there.

Not at all.

I could say that Christianity is wrong because the REAL god is Allah. Disagreeing with my claim that Allah is god is not agreeing with Christianity.

Simply disagreeing with your claims about Christianity does not equal defending Christianity, it just means we think your claims are wrong.

You are not the sole arbiter of all arguments against Christianity.