Why Atheists Care About YOUR Religion

Originally posted by @fmf
Are you a fan of Alex Jones?

Never. He's embarrassing.

Originally posted by @fmf
If it's pejorative, why did you use it when talking to me and in reference to my views?

It's a bit pejorative, sure, it makes fun of clinging to some abstract concept of rights.

But I figure I do not have to be eternally formal.

Originally posted by @jacob-verville
Right, so germany can arrest an 80 year old woman because she denies the Holocaust, and Sweden can arrest a racist blogger, and through default positions of mass ostracism and legal fines and sanctions, as well as loss of employment, etc... society can pressure everyone to live in fear of saying something wrong about race...

What are you going on about? What makes you think I condone these things?

Originally posted by @jacob-verville
It's a bit pejorative, sure, it makes fun of clinging to some abstract concept of rights.

But I figure I do not have to be eternally formal.

If you feel my concept of rights is abstract why does that mean you have be pejorative by way of strange capitalization and funny little words like "Muh"?

Originally posted by @jacob-verville
No problem.

I assure you, we don't need to proceed.

I'd never do anything that extreme.

And you are OK with those 'free' nations. We're good here.

You were trying to deprecate my contributions earlier by talking of me being "emotional" and having a "tantrum" when I wasn't.

What's this going on with you now?

Originally posted by @jacob-verville
But I figure I do not have to be eternally formal.

How old are you? Do your parents work in Seoul?

I'm in my 50s by the way. And my parents have passed away.

The reason I ask: it may be something you are not aware of, but there's your funny little pejoratives with self-conscious bumper sticker grammar and your [like it or not] Alex Jones dog whistles & schtick and your dream of taking over the TV and browbeating the "mentally sick" population. You sound like the exact counterpart of the yobbish late-teens leftie 'no-platform' students on UK campuses.

Originally posted by @jacob-verville
You want me to outline reasons why sexual chastity is objectively good? There's a lot.

Some of them are rooted in objective social science -- such as women are happier in their marriages who never slept around:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2733220/Women-don-t-sleep-wedding-happier-marriages-men-play-field-without-worry-study-finds.ht ...[text shortened]... longterm relationship can hardly be said to being indulgent or anything, but you get the point.

FMF has told me before that he would never consider cheating on his wife. If he is not willing to concede that chastity in marriage is objectively good, I'm guessing he can imagine scenarios whereby it is morally acceptable to cheat on a married partner?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
FMF has told me before that he would never consider cheating on his wife. If he is not willing to concede that chastity in marriage is objectively good, I'm guessing he can imagine scenarios whereby it is morally acceptable to cheat on a married partner?

[1] Jacob Verville and I have been discussing sex before marriage, which, in and of itself may well be "sinful" to some, and which could lead to immoral behaviour, but is not morally unsound per se.

[2] I have no plans to cheat on my wife; it would be morally unsound if I did. You know full well that I can think of a highly specific scenario whereby it would be morally acceptable to sleep with somebody other than with one's married partner because there was a whole thread about it [re: the morality of "adultery"] to which we both contributed, and you and I interacted on it with regard to what that scenario might be. I described it in detail and the moral dimension, as you know.

Originally posted by @fmf
If you feel my concept of rights is abstract why does that mean you have be pejorative by way of strange capitalization and funny little words like "Muh"?

I've been reading this conversation between the two of you, and I only have one question for you.

Do you still miss the point I was making in my initial post in this thread?

I think Jacob here represents that horrible side of religion (and yes, of course I mean Christianity in particular) that a lot of atheists (like the one in the video) take issue with, as you have now for 7 pages. My point was that yes, they certainly have a point in taking issue with it. The other half of my point was that this horrible side of religion is certainly not endemic to Christianity. One can be Christian without taking the same tired sides of these issues. What you failed to see was that my post was more against (and I'll use your phrasing here) retail Christianity and less against atheists. I was trying to make the point that treating Christianity as some monolithic, morally questionable thing is just a stereotype. Christianity (and, yes, by this I mean moral Christianity ) is possible without all the horrible side effects most people (and yes, atheists in particular, especially atheists who use these side effects as their main reason for believing Christianity is horrible in toto, like the girl in the video) assign to Christianity. Christianity in America has been hijacked by the right, and it is this questionable morality that has informed the opinions of some atheists.

This was my point, but you are so eager to jump on me for perceived slights that you don't even wait to see my point before you just open up on me with both barrels. You and I probably have more in common than either of us realize, and yet here we are, eager to nitpick and take issue where none is intended.

EDITS: Lots of little grammar errors.

Originally posted by @fmf
[1] Jacob Verville and I have been discussing sex before marriage, which, in and of itself may well be "sinful" to some, and which could lead to immoral behaviour, but is not morally unsound per se.

[2] I have no plans to cheat on my wife; it would be morally unsound if I did. You know full well that I can think of a highly specific scenario whereby it woul ...[text shortened]... d to what that scenario might be. I described it in detail and the moral dimension, as you know.

I have no plans to cheat on my wife; it would be morally unsound if I did.

Here it seems you are saying it would always be morally unsound if you cheated on your wife.

You know full well that I can think of a highly specific scenario whereby it would be morally acceptable to sleep with somebody other than with one's married partner.

Here it seems you are saying it would not always be morally unsound if you cheated on your wife. So which is it?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
[b]I have no plans to cheat on my wife; it would be morally unsound if I did.

Here it seems you are saying it would always be morally unsound if you cheated on your wife.

You know full well that I can think of a highly specific scenario whereby it would be morally acceptable to sleep with somebody other than with one's married partner. ...[text shortened]... u are saying it would not always be morally unsound if you cheated on your wife. So which is it?[/b]

The operative word is "cheat".

Originally posted by @suzianne
Do you still miss the point I was making in my initial post in this thread?

No, I didn't miss the point. I tackled what you said head on. You are perhaps giving yourself a little bit too much credit for your take on ugly or excessive aspects of organized and/or corporate Chritsianity; the majority of Christians I've met [and know] share your view; it's a common perspective. You wanted me to applaud you?

Instead, what I tackled you on was your use of sweeping generalizations; that was my point about what you said. Pudgenik came along and served up some even more egregiously distilled greetings card-style generalizations. Compared to him, yeah, you done well.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
[b]I have no plans to cheat on my wife; it would be morally unsound if I did.

Here it seems you are saying it would always be morally unsound if you cheated on your wife.

You know full well that I can think of a highly specific scenario whereby it would be morally acceptable to sleep with somebody other than with one's married partner. ...[text shortened]... u are saying it would not always be morally unsound if you cheated on your wife. So which is it?[/b]

You are missusing the word “cheating” in your second point.

This is an example of why you are called out for being intellectually dishonest by almost every poster who bothers to engage with you.

Originally posted by @fmf
The operative word is "cheat".

Yes the operative word is "cheat". Would it always be morally unsound for you to 'cheat' on your wife or not?

Originally posted by @suzianne
This was my point, but you are so eager to jump on me for perceived slights that you don't even wait to see my point before you just open up on me with both barrels. You and I probably have more in common than either of us realize, and yet here we are, eager to nitpick and take issue where none is intended.

If you want to talk about my complaint regarding your generalizations [or answer any of the questions I asked], rather than talk about me personally, yet again, that would be more interesting.