To the Christians here...

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Wanna try again, whitey?

Tsk. You know better than that.

Yeah, I did.

But I did it anyway.

Just like he did......................

 

[ReFLeX]

Yeah, I did.

But I did it anyway.

Just like he did......................

That's a tu quoque. Ask Him to help you be the better person. I'm serious.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Yes! Therefore you would have to show increases in bigotry from the non-religious, to the religious

Such as the moderately religious groups not being bigotted where the extremely religious groups are? Can you point out any bigotted groups that happen not to be religious?

 

[thaiboxerken]

That's a tu quoque. Ask Him to help you be the better person. I'm serious.

I've been trying to Huntster become a better person. There is no need to to ask.

 

[Huntster]

That's a tu quoque. Ask Him to help you be the better person. I'm serious.

Agreed.

He has mercy on such as me.

Fighting is "on the line".

I'm walking the line.

For Him.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Agreed.

He has mercy on such as me.

Fighting is "on the line".

I'm walking the line.

For Him.

Thanks, but you don't really need to do such things for Me.
I'm only merciful because I understand your limitations.

 

[Huntster]

Not all of us are destined to the cross, literally.

Some drag crosses, then are slain.

Some die swinging.

I believe I'm one who must fight.

It's not the cross, but here I am.

 

[ReFLeX]

Such as the moderately religious groups not being bigotted where the extremely religious groups are?

Um... yes? At the very least there are 4 moderately religious people for every extremely religious one. If your "sample" only describes the traits of the one person then it's not a good one.

Can you point out any bigotted groups that happen not to be religious?

Let's say I can't. Does that prove a correlation? No.
When you set "bigoted groups" as the parameters you automatically remove most every day people from consideration. When you want to make a universal claim such as "the more religious, the more bigoted", you can not do that.

 

[ReFLeX]

I've been trying to Huntster become a better person. There is no need to to ask.

Yeah, but when you say better, you mean "thinks more like I do."

 

[ReFLeX]

Agreed.

He has mercy on such as me.

Fighting is "on the line".

I'm walking the line.

For Him.

Sorry, but it seems like you are speaking as you choose and justifying it post hoc. I think it would show more strength to hold back the racial slurs, instead of acting as though the remark was the unfortunate result of fighting for a good cause.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Um... yes? At the very least there are 4 moderately religious people for every extremely religious one.

It seems to correspond to extremely bigotted people vs extremely bigotted people.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Sorry, but it seems like you are speaking as you choose and justifying it post hoc. I think it would show more strength to hold back the racial slurs, instead of acting as though the remark was the unfortunate result of fighting for a good cause.

He can't really help it, he's religious, after all.

 

[ReFLeX]

It seems to correspond to extremely bigotted people vs extremely bigotted people.

Rephrase?

He can't really help it, he's religious, after all.

In the interest of intellectual discourse you should at least try not to act so superior, even if in "reality" you are.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Rephrase?

The ratio is probably the same.

In the interest of intellectual discourse you should at least try not to act so superior, even if in "reality" you are.

It's not that I'm superior, it's that he's religious, and therefore, bigotted.

 

[rocketdodger]

If you think so, what did you mean to say by referring to "people trying to reconcile human nature with religious doctrine"?

I had in mind the more sexual tendancies of humans, which seem to be instinctive. On the other hand, things like violence towards other humans are in my opinion most likely learned behaviors.

So much for disaster, disease, and the thousand natural shocks that flesh is heir to.

This has nothing to do with the topic -- I am specifically talking about suffering inflicted between humans.

Don't the vast majority of effective efforts to alleviate suffering of all sorts also depend to a significant extent on the "dominance hierarchies of society"?

The ones in our history, yes. But only because our history has been full of dominance hierarchies. Had it been some other social construct, the same could be said for that.

First, what do you mean by most prevalent (for it has rarely been the most dominant)? Second, why can't we critique such entities on their own merits? Why why would we attribute to some "dominance hierarchies" vicarious liability for the acts of other ones?

To answer both questions, because it seems as if organized religion is the starting point for the majority of the others.

It makes no more sense to me to lump all religions together than it does to lump all "dominance hierarchies" together. But my point was that certain religious doctrines are directly or indirectly concerned with mitigating suffering, and I think it is clear that that the existence, promulgation and pursuit of such doctrines actually has achieved that result in many instances.

Just as a thirsty man is better off drinking cactus juice than nothing. But wouldn't it be yet better to drink pure water? Your argument is that organized religion does some good. My argument is that humans can do much better.

Still waiting to hear your view of which major advancements in human didn't contribute ad majorem dei gloriam, and how they were all opposed by the Church.

For starters, the ideas of Copernicus and the ideas of Newton. Or the current battle regarding evolution.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Agreed.

He has mercy on such as me.

Fighting is "on the line".

I'm walking the line.

For Him.

Sorry, but it seems like you are speaking as you choose and justifying it post hoc....

I am.

Unfortunately, with some folks, that's what appears to be necessary.

I think it would show more strength to hold back the racial slurs, instead of acting as though the remark was the unfortunate result of fighting for a good cause.

It is. That's what Christ did.

I'm not the Christ. Ken ain't the world.

Sorry. He's throwing the "KKK" and racial thing around pretty "liberally". At some point, he needs to be confronted.

He has no idea. (See my sig lines....................)

Somebody needs to lend him one..................

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken :
I've been trying to Huntster become a better person. There is no need to to ask.

Yeah, but when you say better, you mean "thinks more like I do."

No doubt:

I'm hardly intolerant of the people of the other side, if they changed their mind I'd accept their position.

My opinion has the authority of reality

I'm always right

(See sig lines for links.......................)

 

[Admiral]

All, right, Ken, back to Stalin- an example that crushes your argument.

You admitted you didn't know, so just to inform you- not only was Stalin less religious than Rev. MLK, he was an atheist- a violent atheist who sought to impose his views on others through threats and extortion. The purges that the Soviets committed were acts of bigotry against religion- every religion. If you try to claim they weren't bigotry, you have twisted the meaning of the word "bigotry" very far from its original meaning.

The reason I'm pointing out Stalin is simple- bigotry is not a trait that only religious individuals posess, simple because humans don't become bigoted based on religion. The fact that some humans use their religion to support their bigotry is NOT proof that the religion is the cause of it- that's just logically fallacious.

Truth is, humans are often afraid of people that are different than they are- Many Christians dislike gays, many Muslims hate Jews, and you dislike Christians (your behavior has been incredibly bigoted- a fact that you have no problem admitting, since you say "bigotry against bigots doesn't bother me." Stalin is an example of an incredibly bigoted atheist, showing that not all bigotry comes from religion.

 

[thaiboxerken]

All, right, Ken, back to Stalin- an example that crushes your argument.

You admitted you didn't know, so just to inform you- not only was Stalin less religious than Rev. MLK, he was an atheist-

I doubt it. Also, Stalin wasn't bigotted, he pretty much hated everyone that was a threat to his power, regardless of race,religion and class.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Admiral :
All, right, Ken, back to Stalin- an example that crushes your argument.

You admitted you didn't know, so just to inform you- not only was Stalin less religious than Rev. MLK, he was an atheist-

I doubt it....

Perhaps, then, you can explain how such a "religious figure" as Josef Stalin, as tyranical as he was, grew such a "godless" society?

Also, Stalin wasn't bigotted, he pretty much hated everyone that was a threat to his power, regardless of race,religion and class.

Isn't that bigotry too? Or are you so ill-informed regarding the language?:

The attitude, state of mind, or behavior characteristic of a bigot; intolerance.

Gee................(See sig lines below):

I'm hardly intolerant of the people of the other side, if they changed their mind I'd accept their position.

Right out of the "Book of Josef", as far as I can tell.....................