Tiassa trolls a thread about religion

[Tiassa]

Is that something Jesus said?

It's something Christians said, James.

I mean, that's the thing, you've apparently studied "religion" and "theists" for at least twenty years, and you still don't know these basics?

Really?

That's kind of the thing with this thread: Here we are, at the intersection where unsupported beliefs having detrimental impacts on other people are now infused into governance, and for the seasoned hand, the obvious thing to do is challenge from ignorance. "Are some of the commandments in the bible no longer applicable these days? How do you tell which ones no longer apply and which ones are still important?" Tell me, please, that's not your A-game↑.

Actually, to be fair, what you said, in 2019↗, was, "As it happens, I'm something of an expert on atheist critiques of religion, having 'read up' on them extensively in the past." That retort, while it missed the point in its moment, actually illustrates an important difference. You might complain about "religion" and "theists", but apparently haven't really studied the subjects. (Maybe that's wny my posts on religion go over your head↗.)

So, a couple things about this thread, James: This isn't your everyday, two-bit churching; Americans are experiencing a societal circumstance that is pretty much precisely what evangelical atheists pretend to guard against. In its way, for atheists, this is their hour.

(Clearly, they're not up to the task. It's a disappointing circumstance, but not necessarily surprising, at this point; nor was it intended to be a part of this thread. That point just happened, kind of on its own.)​

It's one thing to confront Christians (e.g., #49↑, "You're a Christian, right?"; #53↑, "So I won't hear you talking about 'atheist morality' again?") but the underlying subject of this thread also happens to share significant overlap with the demographics you so passionately defend in the "Blind Spot"↗ discussion: "There are clues to be found, if you put in a little effort in trying to find out the truth, rather than just making assumptions that make you feel comfortable."

And also the part about how it's "simpler" to "blame" them "for being bad people to the core". Remember that part? "Because that requires less thinking, I guess. It also means you're free to demonise people and misrepresent (some of) them. And some people just can't help themselves when it comes to trying to demonise other people."

Because, sure, other reasons motivate some voters, and we might have whatever discussion about what that means compared to history, but this is the same Christian nationalism that we've discussed at Sciforums since 2007↗; see also, a 2014↗ recollection that is about as ironic as you might expect of Christianist political irony.

And inasmuch as you might try to make various excuses for the presence of any number of supremacist, crazy bits in the conservative politic, yes, actually, these Christian nationalists are among the groups that most assuredly have been pursuing those durable, supremacist passions the whole time.

And they currently hold one house of Congress.

If juvenilia was effective, it would have worked by now.

Seriously, a discussion about chocolate Easter bunnies wouldn't last long at Sciforums before devolving into the same old quiz show from ignorance.

Try it this way: Is the reason threads go this way really that the critics can't do any better?

It's just a strange contrast, James. Like posts #2↑ and 3↑. I mean: Are you new? No, of course not. So, why start there?

Or, maybe it simply takes ten paragraphs to cover three sentences: Speaker Johnson identifies as Christian. Biblically, Jesus Christ approached these commands in a particular way. The part of the assessment that ought to be easy is that Johnson does not appear to be following Jesus. And if it takes ten paragraphs to work around simply asking, "Your point being?" it's true, you didn't leave much to work with. (Inasmuch as the short form in #1↑ was insufficient, #3 reads like a ten-paragraph reiteration in large part because it is, as there wasn't much else to do except try to clarify according to unknown needs.)

Here, try this:

The bible explicitly endorses slavery. Jesus said nothing to negate Leviticus.

Jesus did say to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's (Mt.22-21, Mk. 12.17, Lk. 20.25).

You can figure that out, right? I mean, you're not new.

No, really. This one's easy.

Spoiler

 

[James R]

Tiassa:

It's something Christians said, James.

Yes. Good evidence that your average Christian does not get his or her morality from the bible. At least, not without some cherry picking. And the ones who say they do often turn out not to even have read it through.

I mean, that's the thing, you've apparently studied "religion" and "theists" for at least twenty years, and you still don't know these basics?

Your pathetic swipes at me are tiresome. Why don't you give it a rest?

Here we are, at the intersection where unsupported beliefs having detrimental impacts on other people are now infused into governance, and for the seasoned hand, the obvious thing to do is challenge from ignorance. "Are some of the commandments in the bible no longer applicable these days? How do you tell which ones no longer apply and which ones are still important?" Tell me, please, that's not your A-game↑.

I am having a conversation with a specific person, Tiassa. I am engaging them in conversation about matters they raised.

Your priorities are your priorities. You are free to talk about them, and you do. Meanwhile, I will have the conversations I want to have with whom I want to have them. I will not be told by you what I ought to talk about.

If you want to know my views on your talking points, try asking me, instead of making up more lies about my supposed opinions.

You might complain about "religion" and "theists", but apparently haven't really studied the subjects.

You are wrong, again.

(Maybe that's wny my posts on religion go over your head↗.)

Don't kid yourself.

So, a couple things about this thread, James: This isn't your everyday, two-bit churching; Americans are experiencing a societal circumstance that is pretty much precisely what evangelical atheists pretend to guard against. In its way, for atheists, this is their hour.

(Clearly, they're not up to the task. It's a disappointing circumstance, but not necessarily surprising, at this point; nor was it intended to be a part of this thread. That point just happened, kind of on its own.)​

Self-identified atheists currently comprise 4% of the population of the United States.

Here are some interesting facts, since you seem unaware:
8 facts about atheists

​

You haven't explained what you believe atheists' "task" to be, or why you think they aren't up to it. In the absence of such an explanation, I assume you just wanted to throw out an insult. That would not be untypical.

It's one thing to confront Christians (e.g., #49↑, "You're a Christian, right?"; #53↑, "So I won't hear you talking about 'atheist morality' again?") but the underlying subject of this thread also happens to share significant overlap with the demographics you so passionately defend in the "Blind Spot"↗ discussion: "There are clues to be found, if you put in a little effort in trying to find out the truth, rather than just making assumptions that make you feel comfortable."

And also the part about how it's "simpler" to "blame" them "for being bad people to the core". Remember that part? "Because that requires less thinking, I guess. It also means you're free to demonise people and misrepresent (some of) them. And some people just can't help themselves when it comes to trying to demonise other people."

Because, sure, other reasons motivate some voters, and we might have whatever discussion about what that means compared to history, but this is the same Christian nationalism that we've discussed at Sciforums since 2007↗; see also, a 2014↗ recollection that is about as ironic as you might expect of Christianist political irony.

I don't understand what point you're trying to make in all of that. As usual, you seem to be trying to imply something, rather than just coming out and saying it. In this case, I can't work out what it is you might be insinuating. I suggest you'd do better using plain language. The aim of writing something is to communicate something to somebody else, you know.

And inasmuch as you might try to make various excuses for the presence of any number of supremacist, crazy bits in the conservative politic, yes, actually, these Christian nationalists are among the groups that most assuredly have been pursuing those durable, supremacist passions the whole time.

The serial liar repeats his serial lie yet again.

I have never made "excuses" for the presence of supremacism in conservative politics. You know this, yet you keep lying. You should stop that.

Apologise and start making amends. Then you might start to redeem your shattered reputation.

I'm not going to respond to the rest. You don't deserve more of my time or my attention; you're lucky you got this much. Crawl back into your hole.

 

[Tiassa]

Your priorities are your priorities. You are free to talk about them, and you do. Meanwhile, I will have the conversations I want to have with whom I want to have them. I will not be told by you what I ought to talk about.

If you want to know my views on your talking points, try asking me, instead of making up more lies about my supposed opinions.

So, let me make sure I understand you: You're going to drag whatever thread off-topic if you want?

I have never made "excuses" for the presence of supremacism in conservative politics. You know this, yet you keep lying. You should stop that.

You know, James, it doesn't matter how many times I point to your own words, you just keep denying.

At some point it's reasonable enough to wonoder if the problem is that you can't do any better.

 

[James R]

You know, James, it doesn't matter how many times I point to your own words, you just keep denying.

I challenge you to post a quote of any of my words (with a link to the original source post) in which I have defended or advocated for white supremacism.

Since you will obviously be unable to do that, be aware that I will require to you withdraw your false allegation that such material exists.

Note: some mangled interpretation of my words, surrounded by paragraphs of your own obfuscations, will not suffice. I don't want to see a tortured attempt by you to shoe-horn some words I wrote about something else into a confection to make it look like I have supported white supremacy. I don't want any more of your insinuating "reading between the lines" snide lies.

Quote me, where I have unambiguously supported white supremacism, or retract your claim.

Your ongoing lies are entirely inappropriate. I will not allow you to keep telling those lies. I now require your retraction. This has gone on for long enough.

 

[Tiassa]

I challenge you to post a quote of any of my words (with a link to the original source post) in which I have defended or advocated for white supremacism.

James, I've done that so many times.

Now you just challenge anew.

And after hiding part of the record from me in order to protect yourself from criticism.

But, sure, there was the time you gave an infraction for calling someone a racist; even several years later, you still held the line that it should be okay to behave that way. That's the way your rule has worked, for years, James: People ought to be allowed to attend the stations of racism, but calling them racist is inappropriate. It's one of your objections to obliging people to rational discourse, that some political views might be silenced. Well, right, if it's "religion", you understand the problem. If it's racism, well, not so much. Or, at the very least, you need people to be able to make certain kinds of unsubstantiated, insupportable arguments.

And we can reach back over fifteen years on this, James.

So, as you continue to stuff straw, James, maybe take a moment to think about the fact that you're simply demanding what you've already chosen to not answer↗. You even set aside a specific splinter thread for the sake of making demands, and then ducked out↗. And now, here you are, making new demands?

And remember, I also asked↗ what you thought they were doing. And, again, you just didn't want to talk about it↗.

You're willing to fire me over stuff like this, but you're not actually willing to talk about it. And now here you are making fallacious demands.

You're not new, James, so why should every discussion pretend like you are?

 

[James R]

Moderator note: Tiassa has been warned for knowingly telling lies and for trolling.