Christianity is Anti-Hatred of People or Groups of People

[JWeinCom]

o_O.Q said:

JWeinCom said:

so tell buddy if we take the adherents collectively what word could we use to identify them... group perhaps?

Haha. It seems that I'm not the only one who can't follow your arguments.  You can't either. To quote you (because I have this weird thing about not making shit up).

"are christian humanists the same as humanists? no the definitions show that they are two distinct groups"

You said they are distinct groups, but now you want to call them one group (take the adherents collevtively). congratulations on completely contradicting yourself.  Bravo.  Just... bravo.

But of course humanism isn't a group.  It's an abstract concept.  If you hadn't ripped my poor quote kicking and screaming from its context, it would be quite clear what I was saying, which is that secular humanists and religious humanists are part of the larger humanist group.

humanists are generally atheistic which is why the definitions only make reference towards those who fit that description:"

Even that's a bad generalization (I honestly don't know how many humanists would or would not identify as atheists.  I would actually imagine a larger number would call themselves theists simply because there are far more theists in the world), but you're closer at least.  The dictionaries do not in any way imply that all humanists are atheists, and they absolutely do not conflate humanism with atheism.   And that means that when you said all humanists are atheists, you were defying the mighty dictionary.  You're also now changing your definition, which is another nono in your book. 

You've contradicted yourself twice in the last few sentences.  And I've got the quotes to back it up.  That's that magical "evidence" thing I've been talking about.  I back my shit up, cause I'm nice like that.

have you ever heard of generalisations before? 

Yes, I've heard of generalisations before.  But, I try not to use them in any sort of debate or argument, because I know how logic works.  Why would you be making generalizations in an argument?  That's a logical fallacy. This is logic 101 stuff here. Not only that, but making a generalization about a whole group of people is downright offensive (to them at least).

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/sweeping-generalisation/

" i don't think that they are the same but i do think that humanism is fundamentally atheistic and therefore all humanists are also atheists"

You said ALL humanists are atheists, and you were pretty clear that you really meant all.  Now you're trying to slink away from it like a dog who just laid a turd on the carpet.  And calling that argument a smelly turd would be insulting to turds everywhere.  There's no rationalization for it, that statement was downright wrong. 

"Now, please find one instance of me giving any definition of atheism besides "not believing in a god" "a lack of belief in gods or deities" or another way of saying the same thing.  If you're accusing me of something I didn't say"

 

oh stop that bullshit this came about because you accused me of presenting the wrong definition which i then disproved by presenting definitions from various dictionaries

which amuses me since as i said previously how can you expect to carry on a discussion about atheism when you have demonstrated repeatedly that you do not even understand the meaning of the word yourself

If you want me to stop that bullshit, provide evidence.  :)  I either said it, or I didn't, and it should be easy to prove me wrong if I am.

Have you gone to college? Or high school?  Or a decent elementary school?  Try to write a paper with using dictionary definitions as your primary source.  See how that works for you.  Any teacher at above a third grade level would ask for real evidence.

I have presented several reputable sources that define atheism.  Webster is not an authoritative source.  It's a reference tool.

Plus, even if I was wrong about the definition, which I'm not, that still doesn't change the fact that my definition has been absolutely consistent throughout this.  Whether I was Right or wrong, you are lying about me changing the definition.  So, since you cannot find anything to back up your claim, I am owed an apology. 

lol so therefore you are more qualified to give the definitions of words than dictionaries?

No, but for the case of this word, I provided several sources that are more qualified. 

but you are arrogant enough to claim that you are more of an athourity on defining words than dictionaries usurping their primary role

So, ultimately, your argument is "but the dictionary said so!" Like I said, I've shown several reputable sources of atheism which all contradict what you presented.  But hey, since you love dictriding Webster so much,

Dictionary.com

2.

disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Webster

2

a :  a disbelief in the existence of deity

Oxford English Dictionary

Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

This is the definition I have given several times, and it is in your precious dictionaries.

Hmmm... So both the definition you're proposing and the one I'm proposing show up in dictionary.com and Websters.  Only mine shows up under atheism in Oxford (my dictionary of choice btw).  So how could we resolve this dispute?

I know!  How about we look up what other resources have to say about it!  Brilliant!  And lucky you, I've already done that!  And the sources all back up my point of view!

So, no I did not try to usurp the mighty dictionary, and yes, my definition is valid as it IS in the dictionary AND it is in line with reputable sources.  I'm hoping now that I have the backing of the mighty dictionary, hopefully this line of stupidity will end. 

And if you still think I'm wrong, you can find some evidence. :) 

and what about white supremacists? should we perhaps not call them racists or bigots or whatever because they choose to place themselves under the umbrella of white nationalism? do you have an inkling now as to how ridiculously stupid that argument is now? do you perhaps understand now why we use unbiased sources for definitions?

Yes, I understand quite well why we used unbiased sources.  You apparently don't.

There are situations when you want to use an unbiased source.  (By the way, this is absolutely hysterical coming from someone who used creation.com to try and show Hitler's views on Darwinism, but logical consistency is clearly not your forte.) 

But if you want to give a lesson on writing, (strange for someone who can't use sentences, but I digress) let's talk about primary and secondary sources.  Primary sources are things that are said by a person, group, or organization, and these are undoubtedly the best way to find out what a person believes of thinks.  That's why I keep asking you to quote me instead of making up shit I never said.  Because I, or artifacts I produced, are the best way to determine what I have said or what I believe.  And atheists are the best source to find out what atheists believe.

By the way, this is also why I presented quotes from Hitler and laws in Nazi Germany to support my point of view, instead of the mostly unsourced stuff you gave.

Now suppose you want someone to evaluate what I've said.  THEN you would want a secondary unbiased source (which btw I would love because I would like to know if you're as incoherent and logically inconsistent as I think, or if it's just me.  Seriously, if anyone is actually reading at this point feel free to chime in or PM me.  I'm curious what an unbiased source wout think).  So, if I wanted to know if the Aryan Brotherhood is biggoted or racist, I should probably look for an unbiased source.  But, if I wanted to know what they believe, then I should probably look to a primary source, for example by asking the Aryan Brotherhood or looking at their literature.  Because, you know, they know the most about what they believe.  Cause they believe it.

lol anyway i'm done here... with regards to the main issue of hitler being an atheist i posted various articles that deal with where his ideology developed

from

And even if those sources were worth anything, they're not, none of them said anything about Hitler being an atheist.  I'm not sure why you will not answer my questions with a simple yes or no. 

I can read the articles , and even if they were worth reading, that wouldn't tell me what YOU think.  People can read the same articles and reach different conclusions. 

I'm not trying to be a jackass (at other parts I am, but not here) but I have no idea what your point of view is.  I have asked you several times to clarify it.  It wouldn't be hard.  All you'd have to say is "I think Hitler was a(n) _____________.  It is very telling that you won't even write down your opinion in a clear statement.  At least the weasling away from them is amusing. You have a bright future in politics.

if you are interested then you can look into what i posted and if you are not then continue attacking theists for being blind followers without considering perhaps that we all have been mislead by varying degrees even the high and mighty atheists of the world

Well, if you're done here, then I at least give you credit for ending it the way you started.  With dishonesty, adhominen attacks, and again resorting to pathetic strawment attacks on me.  I have not at any point (at least not in this discussion) attacked theists at all.  I have not said anything about theists being blind followers (I don't think I have in any other topics and I am 100% sure I didn't in this one).  So that's another apology I'm owed.  By the way, I'm a big fan of edible arrangements, so if you want to send your apology in the form of fruit, that'd be lovely.  You are of course welcome to back up any of these claims you made about me with quotes, but every time I've given you that opportunity you've failed to do so.  I don't know if you're a pathological liar, if you're only hearing what you want, the education system failed you, if English is not your primary language, if you are too young to formulate a coherent argument, or if you just realise you have no legit arguments and need to resort to strawman attacks, but the only one who has made any sort of attack on any group of people is you. 

You've claimed atheists worship man, which I find offensive (I certainly don't worship man.  If anything, I worship women, and even then, only the pretty ones).  You've claimed atheists claim there is no god, which many atheists would take issue with (probably wouldn't be too upset, but would tell you you're wrong).  You've claimed all humanists are atheists, which a whole lot of Christians who consider themselves humanists would take issue with, and you've claimed that the Catholic church perverted (your word, and I'll be happy to quote you if need be) the teachings of Jesus.  And your claim (again without any backing) that apparently atheists have misled us is the cherry on top of your hypocrisy flavored cake. 

As for me, my position has been pretty simple.  Hitler was not an atheist.  I have provided a lot of evidence to support that position, and you have not brought forth anything to go against it.  Despite several reasonable attempts to gain clarification, and despite the fact that other people, including germans with a far better grasp on the use of nordic symbols and what they mean, have disagreed with you, you have yet to clarify your position, present evidence, or counter the evidence I've presented.. 

Since you have, despite several requests, refused to state your opinion clearly or defend it,  I'll graciously accept your concession, and hope that in the future you will look into a topic before making yourself look foolish. 

". It seems that I'm not the only one who can't follow your arguments.  You can't either. "

"You said they are distinct groups, but now you want to call them one group (take the adherents collevtively). congratulations on completely contradicting yourself.  Bravo.  Just... bravo."

lol you are losing your grip on reasoning at a quickening rate here my friend i wasn't going to reply but for your sake i am compelled to

here you show a fundamental lack of understanding of abstraction

 

i'll give an analogy - there is a group  of fruits called citrus fruits but below that we have oranges, lemons etc

here we move from more abstract to more specific do you understand now? or are you still having trouble grasping how what you posted makes no sense

 

"Even that's a bad generalization"

well its not and you saying that its not doesn't change reality unfortunately

as i said this is the reason why only atheistic humanism is mentioned in definitions because it started as an atheistic idea and eeven after all this time most of its adherents subscribe to the atheistic pov

its also why the main humanist organisations are secular

 

lol no all you've done is demonstrate a profound lack of understanding of abstraction

 

"Why would you be making generalizations in an argument?"

Well my friend if you do not understand the purpose of generlisations i unfortunately cannot help you there

 

"You said ALL humanists are atheists"

no i didn't at any time post that quote where i've done so 

 

lol i'll skip your ridiculously amusing attempts to justifiy discarding dictionary definitions for words here

 

"Yes, I understand quite well why we used unbiased sources.  You apparently don't."

while advocating that we always allow movements to define themselves? really?

"Primary sources are things that are said by a person, group, or organization, and these are undoubtedly the best way to find out what a person believes of thinks. "

 

"But, if I wanted to know what they believe, then I should probably look to a primary source, for example by asking the Aryan Brotherhood or looking at their literature. "

ah yes because people are always honest about what they believe with regards to conveying their ideas to outsiders... very good advice sir

the aryan guy isn't just going to say something about preserving his racial heritage while ommitting all of the negative aspects much like the rebranding you posted

these groups all realise that in order to grow their numbers and influence that they have to make their ideas as palatable to outsiders as possible

the average person would look at a statement like "there is no god" and say well that's fucking retarded ( although i'm sure that eventually atheistic ideas are going to become more and more common and influencial and not because of "rationality" )

 

as for the original argument stop being so damn lazy and do some research with the intent this time to actually get to the root instead of taking the path of least resistance with confirmation bias

 

i'll give an analogy - there is a group  of fruits called citrus fruits but below that we have oranges, lemons etc

here we move from more abstract to more specific do you understand now? or are you still having trouble grasping how what you posted makes no sense

Which is what I said when I said they are subsets of the same groups, and you criticised it.  W/e though.  Not worth discussing.

well its not and you saying that its not doesn't change reality unfortunately

You said all humanists are atheists.  Please explain how that is not a bad generalization.

as i said this is the reason why only atheistic humanism is mentioned in definitions because it started as an atheistic idea and eeven after all this time most of its adherents subscribe to the atheistic pov

its also why the main humanist organisations are secular

Atheistic humanism was not mentioned in any definition.  Secular humanis was mentioned in some.  Secular and atheist are not the same thing. 

lol no all you've done is demonstrate a profound lack of understanding of abstraction

Nah man.  You don't get to say something blatantly false then say "it's a generalization".  That's what you've done this whole time.  You've somehow abstracted things to the point where huanism paganism atheism and antitheism are the same thing.  We don't use generalizations in debate, and the link I gave you on logical fallacies explains why.

 

"You said ALL humanists are atheists"

no i didn't at any time post that quote where i've done so

Absolutely good sir!  Because you see, I don't make up bullshit, and I don't lie about what people have or haven't said.  You apparently not only lie about what I said, but about what you said as well.

o_O.Q said:

" And if you think atheism is the same as humanism, and you think Hitler was an atheist, then you think he was also a humanist.  And that's bat shit crazy."

 i don't think that they are the same but i do think that humanism is fundamentally atheistic and therefore all humanists are also atheists

however all atheist are not humanists

"therefore (sic) all humanists are also atheists"

There.  You said it.  A direct quote :).  I guess maybe it was so stupid that you couldn't imagine you'd actually said it, but you did.  All humanists are also atheists.  And that ties in to what I said before about your generalization being incredibly stupid. 

Now, do yourself a favor instead of digging yourself deeper into your pile of bullshit.  Just admit you said it, admit it was wrong, and move on.  We all say stupid shit sometimes, and I've done so on many occasions.  I'm not going to hold that against you.  The constant dishonesty though is a bad trait that you should drop.

lol i'll skip your ridiculously amusing attempts to justifiy discarding dictionary definitions for words here

Yeah.  I mean, I'd probably skip it too if I had no argument to back me up.  But, at least do me this courtesy.  If we shouldn't discard dictionary definitions, that you just discarded the ones I presented from Oxford and Webster?

Dictionary.com

2.

disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Webster

2

a :  a disbelief in the existence of deity

Oxford English Dictionary

Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

So if we can't discard a dictionary definitions, then I guess this definition has to be viewed as correct, and then you agree with me that "Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods." Is the correct definition of atheism.  Thank you for your agreement.

while advocating that we always allow movements to define themselves? really?

Yeah, unless you can think of a compelling reason why a primary source shouldn't be trusted, then you should.  Is there a good reason not to accept the definition provided by atheists and the Oxford English dictionary?

ah yes because people are always honest about what they believe with regards to conveying their ideas to outsiders... very good advice sir

the aryan guy isn't just going to say something about preserving his racial heritage while ommitting all of the negative aspects much like the rebranding you postedT

Don't want to get into a whole thing about the Aryan Brotherhood is a gang that has been quite honest about what you would probably consider the negative aspects of the Aryan people. 

But that's not the point.  The point is atheists.  Is there a reason that we should not take the atheist definition of atheism, which is also listed in the dictionary?  

these groups all realise that in order to grow their numbers and influence that they have to make their ideas as palatable to outsiders as possible

the average person would look at a statement like "there is no god" and say well that's fucking retarded ( although i'm sure that eventually atheistic ideas are going to become more and more common and influencial and not because of "rationality" )

If the position is so retarded, why do you suppose atheists believe it?  Do you think atheists are fucking retarded?  Do you have any reason to suggest that all of the atheist organizations and Oxford English dictionary are lying?

If you want to ignore the dictionary definition and the atheist definition, fine.  Present a compelling reason (meaning evidence) that atheists are being dishonest.  If not, then you owe me, and the atheist community at large, another apology.

By the way, I noticed you did not correct yourself or apologize for accusing me of attacking  all theists are blind followers.  Nor have you been able to provide an instance where I did.  If you claimed that I said something I did not say, please back it up with some evidence.  If you cannot, then you lied, intentionally or not, and misrepresented me.  As a simple matter of human decency (thou shalt not bear false witness btw) you should apologize to a person in that situation.

as for the

original argument stop being so damn lazy and do some research with the intent this time to actually get to the root instead of taking the path of least resistance with confirmation bias

How about if you make a claim you back it up?  I've provided you with evidence from multiple sources, none of which you'd been able to contradict.  I have done the research and presented it.  By your own admission (and I can quote this as well if need be), you could not contradict the quotes I've provided regarding Hitler's beliefs, nor can you dispute that the laws of Nazi Gerany forbade any speech besmirching Jesus.

Meanwhile, you not only refuse to present one piece of evidence that has said anything about Hitler being an atheist, and you will not even, despite 7 previous attempts, clearly define your position.  The only reason I can think of for your complete unwillingness to clarify your opinion is that you realize that you cannot defend it. 

Now, you have the right to be as wrong as you like in your head.  However, if you present something in a public forum such as this one, you are responsible for defending it.  If you can't, just admit you can't.  It's fine.  I've also made claims I couldn't defend.  And when called on it, I simply said, "oh I can't defend that" and moved on.