How is that relevant? I'm not attacking your religion merely your typecasting of Christians.

Ok fine. Here ya go. All Christians are intellectually lazy twits for believing in all that mumbo-jumbo to begin with.

There's a nice, sweeping generalization for ya!

Christians. I'm typecasting Christians. I suppose I'm typecasting women, black people, and southerners too, since they were in all THOSE categories as well.

No.

I'm talking about SOME Christians, who put lie to the statement that vocal atheists are the worst thing to encounter.

But don't blame me if you can't see the bigots for the giant cross on your shoulder. It must block a lot of your field of view.

Maybe you should re-read your post. Glad to see you're backing away from it, though. Here's the quote as a reminder:

And, thanks for belittling my religion again Note, that I've never posted anything about atheists or anything much at all about anyone or their beliefs, only defended mine.

Past the irony, the amusing part of this is that you post the same ignorant drivel that you are so offended by, then try to turn it on its ear and pretend you did not. You wrote what you wrote. I'd give you some respect if you stood by it, but you're trying to pretend you're better than the people you hate, while doing the same thing that you allege to despise.

You completely ignored my sweeping generalization!

I'm hurt.

I still love you, though.

Let's review my posts, shall we?

Point 1) I said "Ms. Bertha Betterthanyou", not "all those filthy Christians". An intelligent person might come to the conclusion, then, that I am talking about a specific group! Perhaps even a subset! But, no, apparently if I chat about ONE type of person who belongs to a large and varied group, I'm chatting about the entire group. Go go reading comprehension.

Point 2) Belittling your religion? No. Belittling some of its followers? Yes. Belittling you? Oh, damn skippy! You still aren't getting it.

Point 3) Why do you assume about where my loyalties lie, again and again?

Point 4) I don't want your worthless respect, you mouth-breating reactionary. I don't need it. I have my own understanding of my self-worth.

Point 5) Bubbye now!

Gotcha. You were only talking about the people you were talking about, that only you know, and we shall ignore all meaning behind your words. Come, now. You were clearly using a stereotype about southern Christians, and it's absolutely no different than talking about Muslims and referencing some caricature named "Hazim McJihadi". The inference is there. You made the inference, just stand by it.

Yeah, that would be the part where you wrote "But don't blame me if you can't see the bigots for the giant cross on your shoulder. It must block a lot of your field of view.". Pretty offensive statement. Do you see me telling a Jew to get out of the oven? heh

What makes you think I am? I've made no points about your beliefs or your agenda, merely that you're doing exactly what you profess to despise. You seem to think that everyone cares about your beliefs. You must, because you're obviously trying to get me to ask.. but I don't. You're not a unique flower, and your beliefs are irrelevant to me.

Sorry to call you on it. I know you smelled pussy and wanted part of the action. Normally these threads turn into nice little dog piles, with all of the backslapping inherent on people who can't handle an actual debate. You thought you were going to get a great piece of the action, with your retarded post about ignorant bible belt Christians. It reminds me of one of my favorite movie quotes ever. Here, I'll post for your enjoyment (part in bold is that section that pertains to you)

this thread has better prospects than the "new" republican party

_________________

/shrug, I wouldn't end it with religion and atheism by any means. I'd apply that logic to any situation where one has no proof and calls an absolute. I prefer consistency in argument, and "No, you are!" definitely fits the bill if an argument against the existence of something cannot live up to its own merits.

Yeah, and this is part of what's enormously frustrating. You guys make an assertion and then place some kind of burden of proof on everyone else.

It's really piss-poor logic to assert something that's absolutely unprovable in every single way and then call everyone else out for not fulfilling their responsiblity to present arguments with merit against it.

I must admit: That, sir, is funny.

Wow, Jox. I got a hammer and nails out back if you wanna complete your little persecution complex.

"But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you."

_________________

Silly Tyral. Christians don't acutally listen to the Bible.

It's actually funny to watch them slowly banish more and more of the Bible to the realm of "just a parable" and such as time goes by.

Of course, once a part of the Bible supports their side of an argument, they're all over it.

Oh, I know. It's just fun to point out hypocrisy when it rears its head.

_________________

What makes you think that I'm NOT doing that? I'm not the one making generalizations and ignorant posts about Christians. Like this:

You seem to want people to behave like you expect them to behave. I guess the winning strategy for Tyral is to insult Christianity, then when someone fights back, to throw Biblical quotes at them in an attempt to get them to shut up. Won't work with me. I'm not trying to impress you, or convert you.

You completely missed the point of my post, which is understandable, because rarely have I met a Christian who understands exactly what it means to be Christian. To try to be like Christ. To follow the precepts of the bible and the teachings of the Christian god and his prophets.

What I guess I'm trying to say is that you're not one of those Christians, Joxur. You're one of the typical "do as I say, not as I do" Christians who don't actually try to follow the teachings of Jesus, but still profess to be devout and are more than willing to jump up and and raise hell if something is said to malign their beliefs. Beliefs which are so loosely held that it's amusing to everyone else that you even pretend that you adhere to them.

_________________

Wait, I don't understand. Didn't you write this:

What should I do, take it literally or figuratively? I'm so comfused, Tyral! Please, when you write the primer to being a good Christian, let me know so that I can adopt its guidelines.

What makes you think that anyone should follow your perceived standard. What makes you think that your judgment of those who don't is valid? I mean, personal beliefs are totally subjective, and always will be.

The sad thing is that I'm not judging you for your beliefs, but you actually expect me to care about your judgment of me. You obviously want Christians to be hypocritical. That's your agenda and that's what you want to drive towards on this thread and others. But I guess my question is: What do you care? If you prove that some random Christian is hypocritical, what do you gain from that? Some satisfaction that validates your beliefs? But why do you need to look externally to do that? I don't - I am totally confident in my personal beliefs, despite your heavy-handed, sanctimonious judgments.

The difference is that a number of religion people are not demanding that YOU prove your belief of nonexistence. Meanwhile, many atheists maintain that evidence is required. Religious people that have faith do not necessarily seek such hard evidence.

If you are demanding that evidence be shown, but at the same time completely ignoring the fact that you have no evidence to support your own belief, then the burden of proof most assuredly falls to you. The key here is that you are asking for proof: The religious are not.

Most admit it's unprovable. Most agree it's based on *faith*. They are not making a claim in the same way you make a scientific claim. Atheists(at least most of them), however, are - and the burden of proof lies with them particularly if their arguments are inconsistent. The religious have nothing to prove outside of the fact that they believe what they believe, UNLESS they actually want to make a scientific claim based on evidence - which many do not, cannot, and admit it's not possible.

Ergh, *religious* not "religion people". Clearly I didn't get enough sleep last night =/

You don't know anything about my religious beliefs to actually even pretend to "judge" me on them.


No, I expect Christians to be hypocritical. Hard to do away with that bias when it keeps being reinforced by people like you.

_________________

You seem to need theater like this to validate your opinions, Tyral. But go back through the thread. Who's being belligerent?

I never asked for "proof". No one asked for "proof".

We know you can't "prove" it and that's why we don't really care. The only time I really will delve into the "proof" area is when confronted with some religious person making some absolute statements, and even then the questions are really rhetorical since I know they can't ever "prove" it. (Though some still claim they can.)

And there you go again. Somehow you guys make the assertion and then by some twisted path of logic it's everyone else that's failing to meet standards of proof and evidence.

You mean besides you? Does it matter? You're the one professing to be a follower of Christ's teachings, which included tolerance and peace. Are you being either tolerant or peaceful now? Are you even trying?

Turn the other cheek, Joxur. It's not my judgment you should be worried about.

_________________

It's intolerant to confront... intolerance?

That's a new one.

_________________
Hope is the new black.

Don't you know Joxur, being a Christian is the easiest path in life you can take! <-- sarcasm --

Sitting here watching the Christian bashers show up with their ideas that just because someone doesn't measure up to Christ, they are failures. You can try to be Christ-like and mess up along the way, but it doesn't make you less of a Christian.

I'd much rather try and fail time and again than not be part of the family at all.

There is a reason it's called a "walk". People spend their whole lives trying to become more Christ-like, they aren't born automagically knowing everything, or making all the right decisions. It's a growing and learning process, isn't it?

I just find these types of threads / conversations hilarious because I very rarely see anyone say or write "All Christians do <x>." It is generally statements like "people have used the Bible to justify <bad behavior y>," or "I don't like it when some Christians <z>."

And yet it never fails that a small handful of Christians will automatically assume that the original statement was directed straight at them, intentionally reading to the most possible offense. Its utterly predictable and oftentimes a fascinating mix of pathos and hilarity.

It's even crazier when they go on the attack against others who are fairly devout and practicing Christians who just happen to retain some perspective on the ways in which some people using Christianity and/or the Bible as a club. Hell, it happened right here on this very thread.

_________________
Hope is the new black.

This is going to come off as mocking, but it's not intended that way.

What makes being a Christian difficult? Following the precepts in the Bible don't seem to be that difficult, certainly the 10 Commandments are fairly easy except for not coveting your neighbor's things.

Christians aren't persecuted (for the most part, there are exceptions in certain nations) and are the single largest religion currently being practiced. For the most part, being Christian from my limited understanding basically can be summed up as "don't be a schmuck".

Obviously no one is as perfect as Jesus is claimed to be, and while everyone should probably strive towards perfection regardless of beliefs, no one honestly expects anyone else to be perfect.

The most difficult part seems to come in when you try to follow the parts of the Bible that few alive today even try to practice (planting different kinds of crops in the same field, etc).

Yeah! Maybe some of them can try to grow and learn to leave gays alone next!

And yet, the following statements seem to belie your words, Bearne:









there, part 1 is over with. On to part 2!

Let's make it more personal, shall we Bearne?


There you go.

Part 2 is done, now for the grand finale!

And yet, I, for one, support the rights of gays to marry. I think it should be out of the courts and into each individuals hands. If some believe gays will burn in hell, well.. that's something they'll have to face with God, isn't it? I don't personally believe that, but I even more strongly don't believe government should regulate it at all.

Strange, though. I find myself supporting the banner civil rights issue of the day, siding along with Bearne, and respecting, even donating to and fighting for a cause that is near and dear to him... and I don't get afforded the same courtesy - respect for my beliefs and point of view. Who's the hypocrite?

Remember that this thread started with the bitter hate spewing from Tyral's mouth, and then Syuni opened his. All I did, and some others, is defend ourselves, and I, for one, never mocked anyone's beliefs - mostly because I don't care. What you believe is for you alone.

Maybe so. I'm a Christian and I don't hate gays. My own brother is gay, and I love him anyway.

Following the Ten Commandments may not be difficult, though some are, I assure you there are plenty of other things in the bible that you are plenty difficult to do. One of the hardest for me is loving my enemies. I get screwed over by someone and I'm supposed to love them? That's difficult. But I try, even though forgiving is difficult sometimes. It's hard for me to tithe regularly, a failing of mine, I know, but I do what I can. I try to give of myself, not with money usually, but with my time. In this world, even that is hard.

That's just a start, I have plenty of other epic fails, but different people have different difficulties, and hopefully as I grow in Christ, I'll overcome some of my failings.

What you're missing, Jox, is that Syuni is an observant, devout Catholic.

_________________
Hope is the new black.

What does that change, in your view, Bearne?

That generalizations of Christians is ok if it comes from a Christian? That's some serious stereotyping, but presumably Syuni thinks it's perfectly fine, because he's got "my people" immunity.

Oh, and, I disagree that a lot of your quotes prove what you want me to believe they prove. I think the majority of them support my contentions, not yours. Except for the ones that obvious personal attacks against other posters, such as yourself.

And some of Tyral's - but, really, why would you expect someone who deliberately converted away from Christianity to a diametrically opposite faith to lend credence to Biblical teachings? That's like complaining on a thread about Intelligent Design that someone who used to be a docent at the Creation Museum had a conversion and became an evolutionary biologist isn't treating ID with the proper respect.

_________________
Hope is the new black.

It matters because your base hypothesis is that the boards, as a whole, are anti-Christian. But one of the people that you're citing for engaging in blanketed displays of anti-Christian behavior is, in fact,a devout Christian who is sharing an experience to illustrate the negative way that *some* Christians behave.

_________________
Hope is the new black.

That's a bad assumption on your part. My base hypotheses, now clearly stated, is that threads here have a tendency to devolve into being anti-Christian as soon as the subject of religion comes up, even if no Christian ever raises it.

YOUR hypotheses, on the other hand, that Syuni was merely referencing "some" Christians isn't supported by anything he's said. I've quoted parts that I believe prove my point of view, and you have done nothing to support yours, other than posting the equivalent of "because I said so". I've posted as naseum on why I felt his points were generalizations, with quotes, and you've refuted none of that - nor has he.

Unlike you, I don't believe there's a club of immunity that lets you make sweeping generalizations that others who share your beliefs have to blindly accept.

How is it not supported? Seriously? He never says he's referencing all Christians, anywhere in his post. I don't see how a single of your quotes supports that assertion at all.

I'm not trying to be a dick, either. I seriously don't see how you're drawing your conclusions from the evidence you've presented. Syuni even said, quoting directly, "SOME Christians."

I'm not sure if you're acting in good faith here or not. The evidence is directly contradicting your conclusions, and I'm having a hard time figurig out if you're just being argumentative or actually think what you're posting. At this point, count me as "baffled."

_________________
Hope is the new black.

He wrote "some" after he got called on it. This is what he originally posted. The full quote should stand on its own, but since you need a tutorial, I'll quote the parts that indicate generalizations.
Those words indicate absolutes, not "sometimes".

Your point is that's not a generalization... Really? What else can it be, a true story about a woman named Bertha Betterthanyou? If he's not generalizing about Christians in the Bible Belt, what is he generalizing about?

I guess it comes down to what you interpret his caricature of Bertha Betterthanyou to be. I classify it, and I think the inference is absolutely clear, that Bertha is the stereotypical southern bible belt Christian. Why even reference the bible belt other than to call to mind a lot of historical baggage that paints the subsequent words in a negative light? The bible belt is pretty much a prejorative.

With patience, I reply:

My original post was in reply to previous statements saying $vocal_atheist > $vocal_christian on the annoyance factor. Let's examine that quote now:


Perhaps things are clearer now?

There are a thousand flavors of Christian. One of them is the type that runs Jacksonville, where I happen to live. The First Baptist Church here effectively owns the city, and the police department. There are many other Christians who, despite following the words of the same Jesus, and living in the same city, find their methods, actions, and conceits reprehensible. AGAIN: OTHER CHRISTIANS DO NOT LIKE THESE CHRISTIANS. And amongst my friends, we call the outspoken, bigoted members of that church Bertha Betterthanyou, in reference to the Ray Stevens song.

I am humbled by Bearne's claims that I am a devout Catholic - I've done little enough to show that side of myself here. I'm more of a firebrand rabblerousing acidic bullhorn with legs.

Still, with all this said, I can't help but feel I'm preaching to the stones. You've made your mind up. You've decided that we're all against you, and that I'm a venomous serpent who despises Christianity, only to hide when I get "called on it", whatever the hell that means.

Since when does "stereotypical southern bible belt Christian" equal "all Christians?"

_________________
Hope is the new black.

Since Jox came along.

i've lived in texas and georgia my whole life and have never been treated as poorly by christians as i have by atheists

_________________

I envy your experiences, then.

Note: That was posted by our new resident troll-bot.

You're inherently asking for proof if the underlying philosophy behind your nonbelief is the reliance on fact and evidence, whether it's possible or not. Again, the religious admit they rely on faith. That claim is not a provable one, and is readily admitted. Atheists adhere to the principle of relying on proof and fact, but turn right around and claim there is no God without proof one way or the other. The burden of proof remains on the party that has an inconsistent argument.

Emphasis mine. Most Christians don't even try. They just throw up their hands and say "it's too hard" or they ignore the teachings of their own scripture and say "God loves me and knows I'm a good person so I'm going to Heaven anyways."

If you're in the latter category, then you've ceased being a Christian, so you should probably find a new label for yourself. If you're in the former, then you're a hypocrite.

_________________

Sorry, but no.

I'm glad our courts aren't run by folks like you.

"I think Bob is guilty."

"Do you have any proof?"

"Proof? What? You're basing your disbelief on lack of proof? You have the burden of proof here, to show Bob isn't guilty."

".........huh? But...you just made the assertion that he's guilty, don't you have to prove something?"

"Of course not. I have *faith* that he's guilty. You're the one that's all about facts, so you should have to present some to prove he's not guilty or else he goes to the chair!"

"......huh?"

That is a silly comparison. Atheists are taking just as much of a stand on faith as Theists. Agnostics are the ones without the burden of proof because they are the ones that aren't taking a stand.

In court the judge would be agnostic and the lawyers would be the Theists and Atheists.

Some bearded fucker in a robe carved a backwards J on my face.

Yea, there's also a couple of other problems with that analogy. For one the analogy represents a real and serious situation in which someone's livelihood is on the line. One may easily choose the situations in which faith plays a role - and law as well as government needn't be among them. It may well be that I had a supernatural vision in which I saw Bob murder someone, but such evidence would never be permissible under a system in which evidence and proof reign supreme(and rightfully so).

To make the analogy correct: I would have no right to prosecute or take any legal action based on something without evidence. *Just as I would not able to scientifically claim that God exists*. If I declared Bob was guilty based on a premonition and also claimed that he should be punished, people would rightfully object and ask for proof before we can make a real-world decision. On the other hand, if I declared Bob guilty on a premonition but decided against action on the subject - and you asked me to prove it while also deciding that I didn't have the premonition, you would be asking for proof while not having any proof of your own for your own indefensible claim.

Asking for evidence would be one thing, and saying it is unlikely would be one thing. Saying without proof that I never had a premonition is something else entirely. The burden of proof would still remain with you because you are making a claim of scientific fact, while I am merely stating what I witnessed or believe in without such rigorous requirement and without absolute statements(other than I believe what I believe or saw what I saw... unless the person is lying, it's pretty hard to dispute that).

So basically you get to say anything you want - as long as you base it on your faith - and anyone that doesn't agree has to disprove you somehow.

Yeah, lots of sense around here.

Thanks Venen for providing a perfect example to use to bring this thread back to my original post. Proof and why it is necessary...

While belief remains in the private realm I agree that there is no burden of proof that should be reasonably applied. BUT, when belief is used in the public realm to define 'marriage' or justify law there is and should be a cry for proof that any organization, political or religious, that attempts to codify their particular belief system should be expected to meet.

Thus my original objection: that the Republicans are again clinging to their faith as a party 'core value'.

Bovinity: If their aim is to disprove they've already set themselves up for disaster. Any claim based on faith is *certainly* susceptible to any and all manner of evidence that might suggest otherwise(such as Biblical stories not having an historical backbone, etc) as well as philosophical reasoning(i.e. the line of thought that suggests a good omnipotent God would not allow some of the bad things evident here on Earth). So in that sense, no, I can't really say anything and get away with it.

If they do it on that basis, all they need to do is support it with the evidence they already have. Proof is a little more difficult to come by, and extraordinary claims require extraorindary evidence(namely proof if it's a claim of fact).

Kula: I agree with that, no arguments here on separation of church and state. Religion should be practiced in a way that does not infringe on the rights of others. My only qualm would be that they should be able to speak freely and openly about or against gay marriage, but I'm sure you agree with that and I assume that's not what you mean when you speak of the public realm.

I agree only if you rephrase it to say 'private citizens should be able to speak freely and openly about or against gay marriage but anyone who chooses to enter public service has chosen to give up his/her right to speak on matters of faith as they apply to policy'.

Of course, it's a shame that anti-gay discrimination gets to hide behind labels of faith and religion when we all know that, frankly, it's just a lot of people that don't like "the fags".

But wait. What degree of gross generalization is ok? It's ok to generalize about southern bible belt Christians, so long as it's not "all Christians". Why, I agree. I find that mostly light-skinned blacks commit the majority of crime in this country. There, I'm not racist!

Weird. I lived in Jacksonville for 10 years. I was an atheist at the time. I don't recall ever seeing this cabal of the First Baptist Church and the Jax PD. Now you're running to conspiracy theories about a certain church in Jax that OWNS THE CITY omg! Where will the thread take us next, I wonder. Christian death-cults that only you know about?

I retract all statements and humbly apologize. I found some evidence of Syuni's claims. Here's a picture of the pastor at First Baptist Church, Jacksonville, FL.



Heart supplied by Jax PD.

Quit liking fags, they give you cancer.