Christianity is Anti-Hatred of People or Groups of People

[JWeinCom]

o_O.Q said:

JWeinCom said:

 

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 willingness 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.

Edit:  But at least now when talking about atheistic regimes you went for the Russia example instead of Nazi Germany, so apparently you are learning, even if you won't admit to being wrong.  :) 

 

"W/e though.  Not worth discussing."

 

yes because you realised that you were wrong it was worth discussing though when you brought it up

Mkay.  I was wrong.  It happens.

"Atheistic humanism was not mentioned in any definition."

I'm not sure why we're still arguing this.  We've established that humanists are not necessarily atheists.  We could move on.

all right fair enough  i was thinking of its origins but i will gladly admit that i was wrong to post that

Ok then. 

Yeah.  I mean, I'd probably skip it too if I had no argument to back me up."

yeah no argument like that being the primary purpose that we use dictionaries lol please stop 

You know what?  You're write.  We should totally use dictionary definitions.

Webster

2

a :  a disbelief in the existence of deity

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

All hail the dictionary.

and i presented one ( which to anyone with a modicum of common sense should be apparent )with an example for this particular context

Are you referring to Hitler, Atheists, or the Aryan Brotherhood? 

your reading comprehension is slipping again i didn't say that it was; i said to the average person it is

No, my reading coprehension is fine.  Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you because you are not writing in complete sentences or using appropriate punctuation, grammar, or capitalization.  Make sure your writing is clear before questioning my reading. :)

I think that if you say the view is fucking retarded to the average person, it is a valid inference to say you believe it's fucking retarted.  If we're having a misunderstanding, then feel free to correct me. Do you think the viewpoint is fucking retarded?

Anyway, the point was that you have no reason to mistrust the atheist and dictionary definition, or at least have not presented one.

and i have no intention to do so... i personally don't see how you can support atheism and be offended by that since that is pretty much the most pervasive idea in the movement

Nothing about atheism (go to your definitions if you like) implies that all atheists view theists as blind followers.  Some do, some do not.  But, I'm not going to get into a thing about atheists in general.  It is perhaps the pinnacle of hypocrisy that you are complaining of an imaginary unfair generalization made about theists, and are trying to justify it with an actual unfair generalization against atheists. Can't make this stuff up folks.  Read again the link I gave you on the sweeping generalization fallacy. 

 But, this is not about what atheists believe.  This is about what you claimed that I said.  You claim I personally attacked theists for being blind followers.  You did not claim that I think theists are blind followers .  You claimed that I actually attacked theists for being blind followers. Did I, or did I not?  If so, present an instance of me doing so.  If not, then you're a liar, plain and simple.  If you lied about what I said, and refuse to apologize, then you're showing yourself to be a shitty person.  Plain and simple.

So, if you don't have evidence, (which I'm sure you don't, because unlike certain people in this topic I actually know what I've said) you have the choice.  Admit you were wrong in lying about me, or admit that you are a liar.

which makes me wonder if you are simply attempting to be dishonest here but whatever

So... let me get this straight.  You claimed that I have done something which I have not done.  When I dispute that lie, I'm the dishonest one?

Wow.  I am honestly impressed that your mind was able to conceive of that level of bullshit.  It's almost an artform.

Though, I guess it fits in with the rest of the bullshit.  You've decided what atheists believe, and if they do or say anything else, it's clear that you're still right, and they're just liars.

i posted various articles that are in direct opposition to your claims that christianity was the motivation behind his movement and that it was instead motivated by an older pagan religion if you choose to dismiss then that's your prerogative

No, you didn't.  You posted one article that claimed Hitler believed in Aryan's with psychic powers and stuff like that, with no source of any kind or references to back it up. 

Further, I did not say that Christianity was the motivation for the movement.  The closest I said to that was that Hitler claims his hatred of the Jews is based on the Bible, and whether or not it's true, Hitler certainly said it.

as i conceded yes he appears to be associated with christianity in various ways but as i said there is also various evidence that the movement was inspired by an older religion

So then are you saying he wasn't an atheist?  If so, we're in agreement. 

no i still stand by what i said but the overall point is that atheism makes people no more moral or causes less suffering than any other ideology which seems to be a belief that is pervasive among atheists

Which is something I never disputed.  Not that I agree, but you are entitled to your own opinion.  What I disagreed with was the idea that Hitler was an atheist, because that is factually inaccurate based on the best evidence we have.