Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
you're lucky I'm a nice guy.
What the hell is that supposed to mean?
It means he's desperately trying to wipe out the vision of how he really looks to other people that I provided him earlier.
Nice try, Sparkles, but that whole "I'm rubber, you're glue" thing ain't flying here. We both know who's been proudly proclaiming his hatred in this thread.
I know you have me in a box, but... that's not where I am.
I know you think you're one thing, but your words reveal you as something else.
Seek therapy.
I'm going to skip over you're polemicist points, and try and clear this up. I was being a "polemic" when I said "ignorance breeds religion." I admit that, although I happen to think there is a lot of truth to this, and this is backed statistically if you look at the number of those with faith in many countries across the world, and how that changes with the quality and style of education in those countries.
Oh?
Most other nations in the world are more culturally homogenous than the States. They are also less free, given to authoritarianism, totalitarianism or some form of democratic collectivism. The most religious country in the West is the freest and maintains the largest economy in the world. The decline in America's education system can be directly traced to lefty's stranglehold on it, particularly at the elementary and secondary levels. That's what's killin' us. Free up our education system and watch what happens. But we can't get there because the statists among us, the least religious, won't let go.
The two are not contradictory at all, at least as far as Christianity is concerned.
The fundamentalist perspective is not relevant to sound biblical hermeneutics.
A number of "scientific claims" are the stuff of scientism ultimately based on a metaphysical naturalism.
So, you get the trend we see and would expect. In places where education is not valued highly, there is greater religious and fundamentalist thought.
Hmm. That wasn't the view of the Reformationists or the Christians of the Enlightenment at all.
Odd. It's mostly conservatives (many of whom are Christians) and libertarians in this country who are trying to bring real reform to the education system precisely because the quality of education is so deplorable. It's the self-describe secularists among us who resist that reform.
Ever consider the possibility that it's the "religions" of scientism and collectivism that account for the decline of the West? Europe, for example, is in big trouble, and America, if parents don't take back the education system soon, is going to fad away as well.
You're talking logic to a bigot. That's like talking physics to a chimpanzee. He's just going to stare at you blankly, and then start throwing his feces at you.
By the way, although our "educated" member, NewPolitics, apparently isn't "educated" enough to know it, "scientism" is a real word.
Scientism - an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities)
Yeah, but MD is "done" in NewPolitics' opinion for using it.
Sure am glad we have these amazingly "educated" people around to tell us what's what.
What the hell is that supposed to mean?
It means he's desperately trying to wipe out the vision of how he really looks to other people that I provided him earlier.
No, it means, if I wanted to slam you for all of the red herrings an inaccurate statements you posted about me, I could, but it would take a lot of energy because there are so many of them, and I sense that you simply won't care, because all you care about is your own image.
I know you have me in a box, but... that's not where I am.
I know you think you're one thing, but your words reveal you as something else.
Seek therapy.
In other words, you're arguing a straw man. It's called an analogy, since I'm tired of saying "that's a straw man" since that's all idiots like you ever do, as if it were your job to construct these things.
By the way, although our "educated" member, NewPolitics, apparently isn't "educated" enough to know it, "scientism" is a real word.
Scientism - an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities)
Yeah, but MD is "done" in NewPolitics' opinion for using it.
Sure am glad we have these amazingly "educated" people around to tell us what's what.
(wiki)
"Scientism is a term used, usually pejoratively, to refer to belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints."
Note the bolding of the word "pejoratively." That's key. Somehow, not even indicated in your definition, although it was obvious to me, even before looking up this word, that it was used as such.
I know you think you're one thing, but your words reveal you as something else.
Seek therapy.
In other words, you're arguing a straw man. It's called an analogy, since I'm tired of saying "that's a straw man" since that's all idiots like you ever do, as if it were your job to construct these things.
What in the FUCK are you babbling about? WHAT "straw man"? WHAT "analogy"? You're just throwing out words at random now.
By the way, although our "educated" member, NewPolitics, apparently isn't "educated" enough to know it, "scientism" is a real word.
Scientism - an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities)
Yeah, but MD is "done" in NewPolitics' opinion for using it.
Sure am glad we have these amazingly "educated" people around to tell us what's what.
(wiki)
"Scientism is a term used, usually pejoratively, to refer to belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints."
Note the bolding of the word "pejoratively." That's key. Somehow, not even indicated in your definition, although it was obvious to me, even before looking up this word, that it was used as such.
OF COURSE it's pejorative, numb skull. That's because he was making an insulting comparison between REAL science and your wild vacillation between pretending to revere science while actually knowing nothing at all about it. It was his whole frigging POINT.
That's it. I'm going to go talk to my three-year-old for a while. Not only is his conversation slightly more sensible and intelligent than yours, he's also a hell of a lot cuter and more entertaining.
No, dear, Marty says Cammmpbell is angry because he runs around, starting threads about how stupid Christians are for believing in God, how brilliant he is for NOT believing in God, and how religion and education can't possibly coexist in one person's mind . . . you know, like THIS thread.
The question of why Cammmpbell is angry is still up for discussion. But it requires no projection whatsoever to state that he IS angry about something. The projection comes from him and you and your "I think Christians suck, so I'm going to assert my opinion as a universal fact" remarks.
The only "fact" you cited, as far as I can see, is that you are sorry. This is inarguable.
I don't blindly hate all christians. I only respond to christian claims when necessary and appropriate, so don't project you're image of atheists onto me. I try to be fair. I am not familiar with campbell's other post. From my perspective, what i wrote is what I saw. I retract my apology.
Ironic post is . . . ironic.
Honey, in this post and the one previous, you made it very clear that you DO hate all Christians, and there is only one way to hate an entire group of people you don't even know: blindly.
I don't have to "project" anything onto you. All I have to do is respond to YOUR WORDS. Let me quote:
"Ignorance breeds religion and faith."
I don't care how you want to rationalize and justify that. To say that religious people of faith are all automatically ignorant IS hatred, and it IS bigotry, and there's not a person here EXCEPT for you and the other bigots who thinks you're not one. If you're going to flatter yourself that you "try to be fair", explain to me where you were "trying" in that sentence, please. Wait, let me guess. You were being "fair" by only describing people who disagree with you as ignorant, rather than calling them stupid, right?
You are not only a bigot, you're a hypocrite. And by the way, while we're on the subject of "ignorance", how about posting in a thread without bothering to read any of the prior posts there?
"I'm sorry that I have to call you names and denigrate you" is not an apology, so you may not only "retract" it, you may subsequently shove it up your bigoted ass.
This has been today's episode of "How the Rest of the World Sees You". Thank you for tuning in, and we now return you to your regularly-scheduled delusion.
Oh right. The bible is true because it says its true. I get it, now. When you quote the bible, its supposed to prove me wrong, even though I don't believe in the christian god, because there is no evidence for him, or any evidence the the bible was inspired by god. Interesting.
You know, I have no idea who you're talking to - I'm assuming the voices in your head, at this point - but would it be too much to ask that, when you quote my posts, your responses actually relate in some way to my posts? Where did I ever say, "The Bible is true because it says it's true"?
Furthermore, shitforbrains, I didn't quote the Bible in this instance. Logical did. And he didn't quote it to "prove you wrong". In fact, he didn't do it in relation to YOU at all. He was responding to Cammmpbell's post in which HE cited the Bible to prove HIS point. How would you propose that Logical prove Cammmpbell's interpretation of Biblical passages wrong without citing the Bible, hmmmm?
The only thing "interesting" about this is that you're obviously in serious need of meds, because you are only vaguely attached to reality at this point.
You don't have to say it explicitly. It's a little implicit when you quote entire bible verses. This ain't exactly bible study.
Why else would you post it, and then follow up with the garbage you did, "Very nicely done, but don't be surpised if they don't bother to respond..." Bla bla bla, yada yada yada.
For someone like you that talks so much shit and is such a hypocrite, you're lucky I'm a nice guy.
All science is theory..........
All ancient, mythical god worship is horse shit. When youngsters attend an accredited university and take the right courses they immediately realize that. The old "I'm a gonna' rise up from the grave, join a ghost floating on a cloud, fly off to paradise and live forever" rendition is short lived. When the present generation dies off I'd say it's within 50 years of being dead. Then it will assume a similar role to Thor, Athena, Zeus and other ancient mythological gods.
"Scientism"? yeah, you're done.
LOL!
Let me remind you of an exchange we had recently on another thread. . . .
newpolitics:
No, they are not. That is simply how you see them. There is no logical support for perception and interpretation of physical phenomena as god-laced or as you put it, "god's fingerprints." This is only something people who already believe will see. Those who do not believe a god are not going to be convinced by the teleological argument. I wish believers would understand this, and stop presenting interpreted "facts" as if they are not subjective. They are completely subjective, informed by beliefs that already exist in the observer. Our beliefs form the basis for our perceptions. Therefore, one with a belief "god exists" might see god everywhere, all the time, and consider this as evidence. For someone that is not a believer already, it is NOT EVIDENCE!
M.D. Rawlings:
And I wish others were not so given to irrational outbursts of intellectual bigotry. Perhaps if some were not so blinded by their materialist biases they wouldn't fling baseless allegations, as if I didn't understand the variously distinct essences of theological, philosophical, mathematical and scientific proofs; as if, cutting to the chase, I didn't understand the metaphysics of science, its rules, its methodology, its object . . . as if you were stating something profound.
Really? Seriously?
Did the article on my blog read like it was written by a novice? Perhaps you should have read it before reacting to my post.
Talk about the presumptuousness of the subjective nancing about as an objectively self-evident axiom: "only . . . people who already believe will see ['God's fingerprints']", while "[t]hose who do not believe [in the existence of] a god are not going to be convinced."
Is this a scientific theory, a generalized postulate derived inductively from specific examples of observed phenomena? When is this theory of yours up for peer review?
Don't get in over your head with me.
A metaphoric allusion to the teleological perspective (which is not the same thing as suddenly, out of the blue, without qualification, positing a teleological argument!) is not formally or logically inappropriate. It presupposes that the reader is aware that religious conversion begins with ontological considerations and ultimately comes to the teleological perspective, which, by the way, is not imponderably subjective, but relationally subjective, a matter of shifting one's perspective.
Don't confuse my stuff with that of theistic laymen.
__________________________________
I've observed your stuff, mostly without comment. But let's get something straight right now, son.
You don't fly anywhere near the altitude of my intellect. It's not even close. Your arrogance alone is enough to bring you down with one hand tied behind my back and the other in a cast. But that's not my style.
I prefer civility.
Anytime you wish to step into the Lair and comment, be my guest. You can start with this genius: Prukrock's Lair: Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism
Then, you'll have a better idea as to who you're talking to before you go putting your foot in your mouth again.
There's plenty I don't know. You could fill the universe with that. Nevertheless, I'm a reasonably accomplished student of the history of ideas and events, and well-learned in logic, theology, philosophy and science, significantly better than the average bear.
If you're going to call something like science "scientism," at least with respect to questions concerning our origin, knowing it is a pejorative term, I don't want to debate you. You want to disrespect me off the bat like that, then I have no use for you. I will step into your fucking lair all night, just to piss you off, if you are going to throw a word like that around. I don't give a shit about your credentials or your background or what you've studied. You demonstrated in one word that all of that means absolutely jack shit, at least to me. If you are going to disrespect a discipline like science so flippantly, I have no respect for what you think you know.
Lastly, don't EVER call me son, son.
It means he's desperately trying to wipe out the vision of how he really looks to other people that I provided him earlier.
No, it means, if I wanted to slam you for all of the red herrings an inaccurate statements you posted about me, I could, but it would take a lot of energy because there are so many of them, and I sense that you simply won't care, because all you care about is your own image.
Oh, look, everyone! Psycho Lib has been allowed out into the dayroom so he can blither at us some more.
You really don't understand that words have actual, specific meanings, do you? You think "hypocrite" and "bigot" mean "someone I don't like", and apparently that "red herring" means "arguments I don't like and don't want to respond to". This is the only explanation I can find for the facts that 1) you have not so much as MENTIONED any "red herrings" of mine before this, and 2) you cannot and have not cited a single one of these alleged "red herrings".
The truth is, if you could "slam" me for anything, you'd do it in a heartbeat. We know this, because you've been trying DESPERATELY to slam me for some time now, and every one of your swings misses and hits you in the head.
Oh, and I particularly enjoy your return to "I'm rubber and you're glue", in which you merely repeat my remarks about you back at me, assuming that because they were devastating when I did it, they'll be the same for you. Yet another example of you not understanding that words mean things . . . but at least you're consistent.
If you're going to call something like science "scientism," at least with respect to questions concerning our origin, knowing it is a pejorative term, I don't want to debate you. You want to disrespect me off the bat like that, then I have no use for you. I will step into your fucking lair all night, just to piss you off, if you are going to throw a word like that around. I don't give a shit about your credentials or your background or what you've studied. You demonstrated in one word that all of that means absolutely jack shit, at least to me. If you are going to disrespect a discipline like science so flippantly, I have no respect for what you think you know.
Lastly, don't EVER call me son, son.
LOL!
Are you always this thin-skinned?
I'm much older than you. "Son" is not an insult.
That was an invitation to discuss, not fight.
Somehow or another, you took a term writ by me to be a personal insult directed at you and then thought to derisively dismiss me without really knowing what I had in mind.
Of course, scientism and science are not synonymous terms, just as methodological naturalism and mechanistic naturalism are not synonymous metaphysical presuppositions.
I'm a theist, not a materialist.
What's wrong with you?
Jeez, it's late for me. I'm normally in bed much earlier than this, but I had to fix some links on my blog.
Good night.
First of all, I think you meant metaphysical naturalism, not mechanistic naturalism, which is what is contrasted against methodological naturalism.
I don't like when people call me son. Where I live, it carries a negative connotation or is used as means to demean.
I am pretty thin-skinned as a matter of fact. I am working on it. I fully admit that I am over-sensitive to criticism and is why I get so angry. I am simply trying to have a discussion, but some here like to put words in my mouth, and I am forced to defend something I don't believe. That pisses me off, and when I get pissed about this, I lose the ability to be rational and calm, and I become simply vengeful. I am working on this.
I don't blindly hate all christians. I only respond to christian claims when necessary and appropriate, so don't project you're image of atheists onto me. I try to be fair. I am not familiar with campbell's other post. From my perspective, what i wrote is what I saw. I retract my apology.
Ironic post is . . . ironic.
Honey, in this post and the one previous, you made it very clear that you DO hate all Christians, and there is only one way to hate an entire group of people you don't even know: blindly.
I don't have to "project" anything onto you. All I have to do is respond to YOUR WORDS. Let me quote:
"Ignorance breeds religion and faith."
I don't care how you want to rationalize and justify that. To say that religious people of faith are all automatically ignorant IS hatred, and it IS bigotry, and there's not a person here EXCEPT for you and the other bigots who thinks you're not one. If you're going to flatter yourself that you "try to be fair", explain to me where you were "trying" in that sentence, please. Wait, let me guess. You were being "fair" by only describing people who disagree with you as ignorant, rather than calling them stupid, right?
You are not only a bigot, you're a hypocrite. And by the way, while we're on the subject of "ignorance", how about posting in a thread without bothering to read any of the prior posts there?
"I'm sorry that I have to call you names and denigrate you" is not an apology, so you may not only "retract" it, you may subsequently shove it up your bigoted ass.
This has been today's episode of "How the Rest of the World Sees You". Thank you for tuning in, and we now return you to your regularly-scheduled delusion.
You use an appeal to ridicule, especially when you talk about shoving it up my "bigoted ass". You argue a straw man, being someone that hates christian, which you deduced by your own subjective interpretation of my words, even though I made it explicitly clear that I don't hate christians. I used the analogy of disliking pizza but not disliking all italians- because I don't agree with someones beliefs about something, doesn't mean I don't like that person. Yet, you continually put me in a box as a christian hater. This could be seen as one big red herring from the discussion thread topic. We went from talking about the OP to me being a christian hater, on your say so. If that isn't a red herring, I don't know what is. Without being able to establish this, it serves no purpose and is utterly subjective without you explaining or backing up any of your assertions about this claim, or responding to my objections to this claim, instead you simply kept re-asserting that I was a christian hater and calling me a bigot and a hypocrite, without explaining how, after DEMONSTRATED how I am not a christian hater just because I disagree with christianity. Then you hypocritically accuse me of throwing out meaningless accusations using the words "bigot" and "hypocrite" when you are doing the exact same thing. It's absolutely fucking hilariously juvenile. This is usually the frustration of debating christians. You are completely self-unaware. I tried to avoid having to bring all of this up because it is a pain in the ass.
I was hoping we could move on and get to some actual points, but you continued to call me a bigot and hypocrite, without explaining how, simultaneously accusing me of throwing out meaningless words like "red herring."
Satisfied, you wise-ass?
No, it means, if I wanted to slam you for all of the red herrings an inaccurate statements you posted about me, I could, but it would take a lot of energy because there are so many of them, and I sense that you simply won't care, because all you care about is your own image.
Oh, look, everyone! Psycho Lib has been allowed out into the dayroom so he can blither at us some more.
You really don't understand that words have actual, specific meanings, do you? You think "hypocrite" and "bigot" mean "someone I don't like", and apparently that "red herring" means "arguments I don't like and don't want to respond to". This is the only explanation I can find for the facts that 1) you have not so much as MENTIONED any "red herrings" of mine before this, and 2) you cannot and have not cited a single one of these alleged "red herrings".
The truth is, if you could "slam" me for anything, you'd do it in a heartbeat. We know this, because you've been trying DESPERATELY to slam me for some time now, and every one of your swings misses and hits you in the head.
Oh, and I particularly enjoy your return to "I'm rubber and you're glue", in which you merely repeat my remarks about you back at me, assuming that because they were devastating when I did it, they'll be the same for you. Yet another example of you not understanding that words mean things . . . but at least you're consistent.
You baselessly assert that my words have no meaning, yet this is simply because you are unable to be honest about your own behavior. It is you who is being a bigot, shoving me into a classification as a christian hater because I said I am an anti-theist. I suspect you're understanding of the word "anti-theism" is flawed, and that is the problem.
Anti-theism means "against religious beliefs." I'm assuming you want the definition to mean "against religious people" and will argue for this definition, but this is illogical. You might look at a word like "anti-semitic" and use a cognitive heuristic to infer that "anti-theist" must mean something similar, except against theists, but the roots "semitic" and theism" are categorically distinct. "Semitic" refers to an ethnic group of PEOPLE, while "theism" refers to a class of BELIEF. GET IT? GREAT!
LOL!
Let me remind you of an exchange we had recently on another thread. . . .
newpolitics:
No, they are not. That is simply how you see them. There is no logical support for perception and interpretation of physical phenomena as god-laced or as you put it, "god's fingerprints." This is only something people who already believe will see. Those who do not believe a god are not going to be convinced by the teleological argument. I wish believers would understand this, and stop presenting interpreted "facts" as if they are not subjective. They are completely subjective, informed by beliefs that already exist in the observer. Our beliefs form the basis for our perceptions. Therefore, one with a belief "god exists" might see god everywhere, all the time, and consider this as evidence. For someone that is not a believer already, it is NOT EVIDENCE!
M.D. Rawlings:
And I wish others were not so given to irrational outbursts of intellectual bigotry. Perhaps if some were not so blinded by their materialist biases they wouldn't fling baseless allegations, as if I didn't understand the variously distinct essences of theological, philosophical, mathematical and scientific proofs; as if, cutting to the chase, I didn't understand the metaphysics of science, its rules, its methodology, its object . . . as if you were stating something profound.
Really? Seriously?
Did the article on my blog read like it was written by a novice? Perhaps you should have read it before reacting to my post.
Talk about the presumptuousness of the subjective nancing about as an objectively self-evident axiom: "only . . . people who already believe will see ['God's fingerprints']", while "[t]hose who do not believe [in the existence of] a god are not going to be convinced."
Is this a scientific theory, a generalized postulate derived inductively from specific examples of observed phenomena? When is this theory of yours up for peer review?
Don't get in over your head with me.
A metaphoric allusion to the teleological perspective (which is not the same thing as suddenly, out of the blue, without qualification, positing a teleological argument!) is not formally or logically inappropriate. It presupposes that the reader is aware that religious conversion begins with ontological considerations and ultimately comes to the teleological perspective, which, by the way, is not imponderably subjective, but relationally subjective, a matter of shifting one's perspective.
Don't confuse my stuff with that of theistic laymen.
__________________________________
I've observed your stuff, mostly without comment. But let's get something straight right now, son.
You don't fly anywhere near the altitude of my intellect. It's not even close. Your arrogance alone is enough to bring you down with one hand tied behind my back and the other in a cast. But that's not my style.
I prefer civility.
Anytime you wish to step into the Lair and comment, be my guest. You can start with this genius: Prukrock's Lair: Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism
Then, you'll have a better idea as to who you're talking to before you go putting your foot in your mouth again.
There's plenty I don't know. You could fill the universe with that. Nevertheless, I'm a reasonably accomplished student of the history of ideas and events, and well-learned in logic, theology, philosophy and science, significantly better than the average bear.
If you're going to call something like science "scientism," at least with respect to questions concerning our origin, knowing it is a pejorative term, I don't want to debate you. You want to disrespect me off the bat like that, then I have no use for you. I will step into your fucking lair all night, just to piss you off, if you are going to throw a word like that around. I don't give a shit about your credentials or your background or what you've studied. You demonstrated in one word that all of that means absolutely jack shit, at least to me. If you are going to disrespect a discipline like science so flippantly, I have no respect for what you think you know.
Lastly, don't EVER call me son, son.
Sonny, please tell us where you "earned" respect. Was it when you attacked all Christians as ignorant (and then back-paddled)? Was it when you implied a threat: you are lucky I am a nice guy? Just when did you "earn" our respect.
Cause you still look like a little man with a small mind to me....
Oh, look, everyone! Psycho Lib has been allowed out into the dayroom so he can blither at us some more.
You really don't understand that words have actual, specific meanings, do you? You think "hypocrite" and "bigot" mean "someone I don't like", and apparently that "red herring" means "arguments I don't like and don't want to respond to". This is the only explanation I can find for the facts that 1) you have not so much as MENTIONED any "red herrings" of mine before this, and 2) you cannot and have not cited a single one of these alleged "red herrings".
The truth is, if you could "slam" me for anything, you'd do it in a heartbeat. We know this, because you've been trying DESPERATELY to slam me for some time now, and every one of your swings misses and hits you in the head.
Oh, and I particularly enjoy your return to "I'm rubber and you're glue", in which you merely repeat my remarks about you back at me, assuming that because they were devastating when I did it, they'll be the same for you. Yet another example of you not understanding that words mean things . . . but at least you're consistent.
You baselessly assert that my words have no meaning, yet this is simply because you are unable to be honest about your own behavior. It is you who is being a bigot, shoving me into a classification as a christian hater because I said I am an anti-theist. I suspect you're understanding of the word "anti-theism" is flawed, and that is the problem.
Anti-theism means "against religious beliefs." I'm assuming you want the definition to mean "against religious people" and will argue for this definition, but this is illogical. You might look at a word like "anti-semitic" and use a cognitive heuristic to infer that "anti-theist" must mean something similar, except against theists, but the roots "semitic" and theism" are categorically distinct. "Semitic" refers to an ethnic group of PEOPLE, while "theism" refers to a class of BELIEF. GET IT? GREAT!
You would be more believeable if you lumped those that believe in aliens with the "religious" or those that believe in Santa Claus. Because "you" specifically targeted Christians as being "ignorant" and uneducated makes you a bigot. Do you attack homosexuals because you don't live that lifestyle (or heterosexuals because you don't live that lifestyle)? Your own words have exposed you as a bigot. Now you can tell us all day long that you are not one, but you have already given evidence that you are a bigot. You can accept that, or try to grow into a bigger person, but the arrogance that you have displayed here, probably would prevent that from happening. Just embrace who you are: a small minded man that is convinced he knows all about Christians.
Ironic post is . . . ironic.
Honey, in this post and the one previous, you made it very clear that you DO hate all Christians, and there is only one way to hate an entire group of people you don't even know: blindly.
I don't have to "project" anything onto you. All I have to do is respond to YOUR WORDS. Let me quote:
"Ignorance breeds religion and faith."
I don't care how you want to rationalize and justify that. To say that religious people of faith are all automatically ignorant IS hatred, and it IS bigotry, and there's not a person here EXCEPT for you and the other bigots who thinks you're not one. If you're going to flatter yourself that you "try to be fair", explain to me where you were "trying" in that sentence, please. Wait, let me guess. You were being "fair" by only describing people who disagree with you as ignorant, rather than calling them stupid, right?
You are not only a bigot, you're a hypocrite. And by the way, while we're on the subject of "ignorance", how about posting in a thread without bothering to read any of the prior posts there?
"I'm sorry that I have to call you names and denigrate you" is not an apology, so you may not only "retract" it, you may subsequently shove it up your bigoted ass.
This has been today's episode of "How the Rest of the World Sees You". Thank you for tuning in, and we now return you to your regularly-scheduled delusion.
You use an appeal to ridicule, especially when you talk about shoving it up my "bigoted ass". You argue a straw man, being someone that hates christian, which you deduced by your own subjective interpretation of my words, even though I made it explicitly clear that I don't hate christians. I used the analogy of disliking pizza but not disliking all italians- because I don't agree with someones beliefs about something, doesn't mean I don't like that person. Yet, you continually put me in a box as a christian hater. This could be seen as one big red herring from the discussion thread topic. We went from talking about the OP to me being a christian hater, on your say so. If that isn't a red herring, I don't know what is. Without being able to establish this, it serves no purpose and is utterly subjective without you explaining or backing up any of your assertions about this claim, or responding to my objections to this claim, instead you simply kept re-asserting that I was a christian hater and calling me a bigot and a hypocrite, without explaining how, after DEMONSTRATED how I am not a christian hater just because I disagree with christianity. Then you hypocritically accuse me of throwing out meaningless accusations using the words "bigot" and "hypocrite" when you are doing the exact same thing. It's absolutely fucking hilariously juvenile. This is usually the frustration of debating christians. You are completely self-unaware. I tried to avoid having to bring all of this up because it is a pain in the ass.
I was hoping we could move on and get to some actual points, but you continued to call me a bigot and hypocrite, without explaining how, simultaneously accusing me of throwing out meaningless words like "red herring."
Satisfied, you wise-ass?
We are STILL, patiently waiting for you to explain to us, a better way to live your life, than Christianity. We are STILL waiting for you to demonstrate a community built on something else that has offered the productivity and opportunities (for everyone) that Christianity does (notice there is no mention of installing a theocracy, just that the majority of 'citizens' are Christian), if you are interested in making an "actual point".
