Greatest I Am's anti-religion thread

[NotEinstein]

It shows that they are free thinkers enough to call a vile God a vile God.

Then I suggest you call them "free thinkers" or something similar, not "gnostic Christians". Because, obviously, radical Muslims are not the same as gnostic Christians.

Let me just cut to the pertinent moral tenet that shows the immorality of the tenet if you do not wish to take the time to educate yourself.

If I suggested you read the entire encyclopedia from start to finish, would you do that just to learn the definition of one word? I do take the time to educate myself seriously, so I prefer not to waste it on things that aren't relevant.

This describes the fundamental of substitutionary atonement or punishment and my view.

Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.

Do you agree?

Whether I personally agree with it (I do) is irrelevant, because "what goes as "unethical" seems to be quite subjective, especially if you compare the more fundamental and/or extremist branches of the various religions."

If not, please show how it is morally and legally good to punish the innocent instead of the guilty, bearing in mind that all legal systems think that punishing the guilty is what is justice.

Not relevant anymore, because I agreed.

No, but like most Christians, I see that you do not want to show your moral thinking, or lack of it.

How does me not showing my moral thinking, or lack of it, make your arguments and statements any better or worse?

 

[sweetpea]

I will finish this thread and then likely disappear.

Does anyone really believe this? That's if s/he means leaving the forum for good.

 

[billvon]

Only the uneducated or will fully stupid will not know that Yahweh and Allah are the same God.

Yep. And your religious intolerance is shared by many extremist Islamic sects. Quite a lot of similarities.

 

[Greatest I am]

Yep. And your religious intolerance is shared by many extremist Islamic sects. Quite a lot of similarities.

As an esoteric ecumenist, I like to have many religions and ideologies to dissect as Gnostic Christians are perpetual seekers instead of idol worshipers like Christians and Muslims are and am free to adopt wisdom and knowledge from wherever I find them.

I am tolerant of any worthy moral system or ideology but that basically excludes Christianity and Islam.

Both Christianity and Islam have basically developed into intolerant, homophobic and misogynous religions. Both religions have grown themselves by the sword instead of good deeds and continue with their immoral ways in spite of secular law showing them the moral ways.

Jesus said we would know his people by their works and deeds. That means Jesus would not recognize Christians and Muslims as his people, and neither do I. Jesus would call Christianity and Islam abominations.

Gnostic Christians did in the past, and I am proudly continuing that tradition and honest irrefutable evaluation based on morality.

If you tolerate immoral creeds, that is your mental defect. Not mine.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

Then I suggest you call them "free thinkers" or something similar, not "gnostic Christians".

Historically, free thinkers within any idol worshiping religion are called Gnostic to whatever that religion is. That is why you can have Gnostic Muslims in Muslim majority countries that do not allow or promote the death of apostates.

Whether I personally agree with it (I do) is irrelevant,

Good. You condemn a moral tenet that is central to Christianity. They will think that quite relevant if they can still thing. Many cannot.

How does me not showing my moral thinking, or lack of it, make your arguments and statements any better or worse?

Most who agree with a view do not speak against it and agree with it. This is better for the view and bolsters it.

Those who disagree with it but cannot argue against it in any meaningful way tend to either show that in their answer of just do not bother with a reply and basically lose the argument.

A shame that, to me, as then I do not lose the argument and learn nothing. My interlocutor who ran away will get the reward of learning something new if he has the ability to think out of his dogmatic bubble. If not, he is a disgrace to humanity.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

Does anyone really believe this? That's if s/he means leaving the forum for good.

If the stupid mod that is on my case does not smarten up, why would I want to be where I am not treated like all other members?

Why should you care and even ask such a mean hearted question?

Go show your hate elsewhere a hole.

Regards
DL

 

[sweetpea]

If the stupid mod that is on my case does not smarten up, why would I want to be where I am not treated like all other members?

Because the kind mods allow you your own pulpit here, and the zealot in you just can't stop preaching. Your never leave this site, your so predictable.

 

[NotEinstein]

Historically, free thinkers within any idol worshiping religion are called Gnostic to whatever that religion is. That is why you can have Gnostic Muslims in Muslim majority countries that do not allow or promote the death of apostates.

What in your opinion is the difference between a gnostic Christian and a gnostic Muslim, if there even is one?

Good. You condemn a moral tenet that is central to Christianity. They will think that quite relevant if they can still thing. Many cannot.

Yay, I guess.

Most who agree with a view do not speak against it and agree with it. This is better for the view and bolsters it.

Those who disagree with it but cannot argue against it in any meaningful way tend to either show that in their answer of just do not bother with a reply and basically lose the argument.

A shame that, to me, as then I do not lose the argument and learn nothing. My interlocutor who ran away will get the reward of learning something new if he has the ability to think out of his dogmatic bubble. If not, he is a disgrace to humanity.

In other words, my showing my moral thinking, or lack of it, does not influence the strength of the arguments you are making. So why did you ask me about them?

 

[billvon]

Both Christianity and Islam have basically developed into intolerant, homophobic and misogynous religions. Both religions have grown themselves by the sword instead of good deeds and continue with their immoral ways in spite of secular law showing them the moral ways.

Religions, by themselves, aren't intolerant. PEOPLE (like yourself) are intolerant. You are a good demonstration that you don't need religion to be a intolerant, hateful extremist.

If you tolerate immoral creeds, that is your mental defect. Not mine.

And if you justify your intolerance and hate by your religion (or lack of it) then you are the problem.

 

[Kittamaru]

Only to those too stupid to read the whole post.

Thanks for showing your intelligence.

Regards
DL

If you tolerate immoral creeds, that is your mental defect. Not mine.

Regards
DL

If the stupid mod that is on my case does not smarten up, why would I want to be where I am not treated like all other members?

Go show your hate elsewhere a hole.

Regards
DL

Immediately back to the insults... And that's just a few since your return.

You have been given a multitude of chances to correct your abhorrent behavior. I dare say we have been exceedingly lenient with you previously. You have had a dozen warnings this last year alone, and yet you persisted in doubling down on this farce. No more.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

I will finish this thread and then likely disappear.

I do thank those who see what I put as worthy for the board and hope to find you in a more worthy forum.

There seems to be less and less of those as Christianity slowly dies in the West. It cannot live where intelligent people live as they will refuse to go into intellectual and moral dissonance.

Regards
DL

You are an interestin poster by talkin about the elephant in the room/poor morals of the very popular religions... which irritates the thin-skinned head-in-the-sand Christans an atheists alike... lol.!!!

If you leave it will be Sciforums loss... but its understandable considerin the way you have been treeted... so i wish you well if you stay or not

 

[sweetpea]

Don't worry your pretty little head clueluss, GIA can't keep away from this forum for long.
Whoa! Just noticed GIA has been permanently banned... Someone's going to have to create a new sock.

 

[birch]

Yep. And your religious intolerance is shared by many extremist Islamic sects. Quite a lot of similarities.

no, it's not the same. if you believe that, maybe you should move to the middle-east where extremism is tolerated. so you think everything should be tolerated or it's hateful?

this forum can't even tolerate GIA and he/she is not that extreme at all. they are merely denouncing what is unethical about religion instead of glossing over it and calling it tolerance. he/she was also one of the more interesting members for the subject of religion.

look how long this thread is. evidently GIA had a view that made others think about religion. the mods are stupid or make wrong calls at times. this is because the moderation ignores or is oblivious to the work of politics and controversy of differing views and opinions which fuels forum discussion. it is not about just having members who all think alike or agree.

sure, GIA was a little resentful about being marginalized but nothing that bad to be labeled as someone offensive.

 

[Kittamaru]

no, it's not the same. if you believe that, maybe you should move to the middle-east where extremism is tolerated. so you think everything should be tolerated or it's hateful?

GIA's stance was that he and his alone were in the right, and everyone else was some sort of heathen. That's... pretty extreme to most logical people.

this forum can't even tolerate GIA and he/she is not that extreme at all. they are merely denouncing what is unethical about religion instead of glossing over it and calling it tolerance.

... uh... really? I think we've been reading very different posts then.

he/she was also one of the more interesting members for the subject of religion.

Interesting in the same way as watching a pair of trains collide head on is interesting, sure...?

the mods are stupid or make wrong calls.

*shrug* I won't pretend we handle everything perfectly, but it seems you've an axe to grind.

look how long this thread is.

I can make a several hundred page long thread in short order by posting inane bupkis... that doesn't mean it adds anything of value.

evidently GIA had a view that made others think about religion.

Most of the responses are people showing GIA just why he is wrong, backed with evidence ranging from real world examples, biblical text quotes, et al... and his response was generally along the lines of "la la la you're wrong and evil and immoral for thinking that way" or "you're an idiot if you can't see why that's wrong"... not exactly "honest, logical discussion" IMHO.

sure, GIA was a little resentful

"a little"...?

about being marginalized

More like being held to the same standard of evidence and behavioral expectations that everyone else is...

but nothing that bad to be labeled as someone offensive.

So you wouldn't consider these insults...

Only to those too stupid to read the whole post.

Thanks for showing your intelligence.

Regards
DL

If you tolerate immoral creeds, that is your mental defect. Not mine.

Regards
DL

If the stupid mod that is on my case does not smarten up, why would I want to be where I am not treated like all other members?

Go show your hate elsewhere a hole.

Regards
DL

... to be offensive?

 

[birch]

I can make a several hundred page long thread in short order by posting inane bupkis... that doesn't mean it adds anything of value.

Most of the responses are people showing GIA just why he is wrong, backed with evidence ranging from real world examples, biblical text quotes, et al... and his response was generally along the lines of "la la la you're wrong and evil and immoral for thinking that way" or "you're an idiot if you can't see why that's wrong"... not exactly "honest, logical discussion" IMHO.

no, it wasn't just him/her. the thread and subject was interesting enough to several members that they continually engaged in the thread, just because some of it had to do with counter-points in complete disagreement does not matter.

as far as saying one thinks another is immoral if another does not see what is immoral is pretty common personal opinions and some general insults are also common too. unless the member has absolutely nothing to add or point, that is not a good reason to ban them. GIA wasn't that offensive anyways. one can read they are trying to make a point of considering actual tenets. he/she is transparent in that regard which is unorthodox when it comes to religion. other members have created similar type threads but from what i can tell, GIA is more targeted because they are more specific. whether they are right or wrong about some or all, it doesn't really matter. they produced good fodder for the religion section.

 

[Kittamaru]

no, it wasn't just him/her. the thread and subject was interesting enough to several members that they continually engaged in the thread, just because some of it had to do with counter-points in complete disagreement does not matter.

as far as saying one thinks another is immoral if another does not see what is immoral is pretty common personal opinions and some general insults are also common too. unless the member has absolutely nothing to add or point, that is not a good reason to ban them. GIA wasn't that offensive anyways. one can read they are trying to make a point of considering actual tenets. he/she is transparent in that regard which is unorthodox when it comes to religion. other members have created similar type threads but from what i can tell, GIA is more targeted because they are more specific. whether they are right or wrong about some or all, it doesn't really matter. they produced good fodder for the religion section.

If the issue with GIA was one of subject matter, then I might agree with you.

Simply put, it isn't. The primary issue was his abhorrent behavior and continued (and multitude) insults against other members. Of secondary concern was his refusal to debate in anything resembling good faith, simply hand-waving away information he didn't like in favor of repeating oft-debunked claims without any additional evidence to support them.

Ultimately, it was his refusal to interact with others in a rational and civil way that crossed the line. Heated debate is fine - continual verbal assault of other members is not.

In any case, if you feel he was somehow unfairly treated, the best course of action would be to take it up with the Administration, as they are the ones in position to handle and decide such matters.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

Don't worry your pretty little head clueluss

Whoa! Just noticed GIA has been permanently banned...

Hallelujah...

Spoiler

The swamp is bein drained...

Spoiler

Trump style... lol.!!!

 

[birch]

If the issue with GIA was one of subject matter, then I might agree with you.

Simply put, it isn't. The primary issue was his abhorrent behavior and continued (and multitude) insults against other members. Of secondary concern was his refusal to debate in anything resembling good faith, simply hand-waving away information he didn't like in favor of repeating oft-debunked claims without any additional evidence to support them.

Ultimately, it was his refusal to interact with others in a rational and civil way that crossed the line. Heated debate is fine - continual verbal assault of other members is not.

In any case, if you feel he was somehow unfairly treated, the best course of action would be to take it up with the Administration, as they are the ones in position to handle and decide such matters.

none of that is true. i've been on this forum off and on through the years and have noticed insults swapped between members where it was considered okay because of some form of inclusive politics; perhaps the members were seen as clever but still mainstream etc. but it is true GIA easily gets defensive as he seems to come across as if they are continually backed in a corner. the reason why i don't find their less civil retorts that insulting is because they have a marginalized pov in the first place.

i looked back at the thread and saw where it really started and what the issue mostly is:

Your own particular brand of angry and/or alternative reality (take your pick) - it seems to be about the only thing you post around here...

this tends to get people banned very easily or more susceptible. in this case, his/her views on religion.

of course, spamming a bunch of nonsense of the conventional kind or that's not even worth repeating is considered okay though.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

In faith, I think birch is right, it is the internet. But however, GIA (not offending me) if broke rules he should be punished.

 

[billvon]

no, it's not the same. if you believe that, maybe you should move to the middle-east where extremism is tolerated. so you think everything should be tolerated or it's hateful?

And if you think that religion determines extremism, I will introduce you to about a dozen Muslims I work with.

Any time you claim that a single belief (religion, allegiance, political stance, scientific beliefs) determines someone's morality, you are bound to be wrong most of the time.

this forum can't even tolerate GIA and he/she is not that extreme at all.

?? Not tolerated? As far as I can tell he is still quite tolerated (and posting.)