Religious Typology Quiz

[Cancel 1 2023]

Like violent Trumpers who seek to justify violence with half-truths and minor instances of violence by LWers, violent atheists seek to justify their violence against theists using the same strategy.

Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot all used the same tactic as the violent atheists on this thread are seeking to do.

Who are the violent athiests on this thread?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

??????????????

Are you suggesting I'm a violent atheist? Based on what, exactly?

??????????????

Your hate for theists. It’s not the first time I’ve seen it from your and like-minded atheists who are quick to claim Stalin and Mao aren’t “true atheists”* yet quickly follow with the same heated rhetoric as them when attacking theists.




*True Scotsman

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Who are the violent athiests on this thread?

You and Ms. BP for two.

Violent atheists are mostly LWers, but there’s at least one RW atheist on JPP.

The way to tell is through their heated rhetoric and half-truths attacking theists.

 

[Cancel 1 2023]

Your hate for theists.

Oh, wow. That is from left field. I don't hate theists. Why is that anytime someone disagrees with you they are something far more dark? I don't hate you because you are a believer. I am not a believer, myself but I'm so glad you can be a believer.

It's great if you have a faith that is meaningful to you!

It’s not the first time I’ve seen it from your and like-minded atheists who are quick to claim Stalin and Mao aren’t “true atheists”* yet quickly follow with the same heated rhetoric as them when attacking theists.

Gosh I sure didn't mean to "attack" you because you are a Christian. That was never my intention.

I am so sorry if you took that from my posts. I will try to be less "scary".

But I reserve the right to disagree with you. That does not mean I hate you.

 

[Cypress]

Like violent Trumpers who seek to justify violence with half-truths and minor instances of violence by LWers, violent atheists seek to justify their violence against theists using the same strategy.

Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot all used the same tactic as the violent atheists on this thread are seeking to do.

There's not any violent and murderous atheists on this board to my knowledge.

There seems to be a competition between holly rollers and hardcore atheists to cherry pick a few quotes from the Hebrew Bible to make the other side look bad.

My preference is for pluralistic secular government. Pluralism doesn't take sides.

History seems to show that all examples of theocracies and State atheism are oppressive, even violent.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

…I don't hate you because you are a believer….

…Gosh I sure didn't mean to "attack" you because you are a Christian...

What is it you think I believe, Jank?

Remember when you became upset because I posted you weren’t as smart as you think you are? It’s because of statements like that one. It’s also why you remind me of Perry PhD. He’s exactly the same personality type. LOL

 

[Cypress]

I think any human village or tribe would agree that prohibitions against theft and violence would be conducive to the harmony of the group. Logically, stealing from others enhances the person or smaller group but, overall, it weakens the cohesiveness of the group.

Consider that one of the reasons for the fall of the Roman empower was too many slaves. Slaves have no loyalty to the State or Roman ideals since they don’t share in the benefits. For a group to remain cohesive, there must be a greater gain to be part of the group over subdividing into smaller groups or individuals.

This is a difference between the physical sciences and the social sciences….the latter of which are fuzzier than hard sciences.

Yes, I am sure wanton murder and theft was generally frowned upon even in Paleolithic nomadic societies.

To me, being able to restrain oneself from murdering barely counts as a moral code or ethical framework, because it is such a low threshold to clear.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

There's not any violent and murderous atheists on this board to my knowledge.

There seems to be a competition between holly rollers and hardcore atheists to cherry pick a few quotes from the Hebrew Bible to make the other side look bad.

My preference is for pluralistic secular government. Pluralism doesn't take sides.

History seems to show that all examples of theocracies and State atheism are oppressive, even violent.

Do you think people who spread hate are violent? Half-truths? I do. Was Trump violent? Not per se….unless you’re a plate or coffee cup. He only encouraged violence with heated rhetoric just as certain atheists do on JPP. IMO, people who encourage violence and hatred are violent and hateful.

Agreed on the extremist believers…and atheism is a belief system since it can’t be proved to be correct.

Agreed on pluralistic secular government. It’s the best way to ensure liberty and equality for all.

Also agreed on all-powerful governments. Power corrupts and people in power must be monitored.

 

[Cancel 1 2023]

What is it you think I believe, Jank?

I assumed you were a person of faith and based on your extreme response I felt it must be quite sincerely held faith. I inferred from your posts you were American and thus perhaps a Christian.

It was never my intention to insult your faith. I am not a believer so perhaps I was too cavalier to whatever it is you believe it was not my intention.

Remember when you became upset because I posted you weren’t as smart as you think you are? It’s because of statements like that one.

Oh, well, again, that is a misinterpretation. I do not assume my lack of belief is somehow superior to your belief. It just is what it is.

Again, I am not on here to insult someone's faith, whatever it is. My apologies for my harsh language. It was not intended to be so.

 

[Cancel 1 2023]

Do you think people who spread hate are violent? Half-truths? I do. Was Trump violent? Not per se….unless you’re a plate or coffee cup. He only encouraged violence with heated rhetoric just as certain atheists do on JPP. IMO, people who encourage violence and hatred are violent and hateful.

Geez, I certainly hope I didn't fall into that category. I didn't think my comments were "violent" in the least. I do honestly give you my apologies for dismissing your religious beliefs if that is what you feel I did. I will admit to saying I thought religion was "made up". And that probably set off alarm bells. I spoke too harshly perhaps. Mea culpa.

Agreed on the extremist believers…and atheism is a belief system since it can’t be proved to be correct.

Just a brief note on "atheism", there is no need to "prove" a negative.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Yes, I am sure wanton murder and theft was generally frowned upon even in Paleolithic nomadic societies.

To me, being able to restrain oneself from murdering barely counts as a moral code or ethical framework, because it is such a low threshold to clear.

Agreed. It breaks down tribal cohesion and trust.

Wanton murder is one thing. Rape, theft, maiming are lesser degrees of harm to one’s fellow tribal members but still harmful to tribal cohesion. At that level, a moral code is, indeed, a low bar to clear. It’s logical.

As with the Hierarchy of Needs, the higher levels become more “high minded” and less “logical”.

Consider an end-of-the-world scenario such as “When Worlds Collide” or “Dr. Strangelove” where a segment of the population must be selected for saving while the rest are left to die. Those to be saved can be deduced logically by skill set, health and sex. Morality not required even though I think we can agree morality will be necessary for the continued survival of the group.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I assumed….

A rookie mistake.

This is why I think you are under 35 and not very well educated. You clearly lack the acumen and experience to avoid such a mistake. Perry PhD made similar mistakes but I chalked his up to being deranged by stress caused from unknown reasons…or he was lying.

 

[Cancel 1 2023]

A rookie mistake.

My apologies. You are right. It was a mistake. But I assume you are a person of faith if you feel that someone who merely mentions atheism is a "violent atheist". May I say you made a mistake as well in assuming I am a "violent atheist"?

This is why I think you are under 35

You are too kind. I am, unfortunately, pushing 60

and not very well educated.

I will freely admit to being one who is not a particularly intelligent person. I'm sure you are far more educated in all these topics. I just thought the fun of a "discussion forum" was to discuss things and that usually requires presenting alternatives to given positions.

You clearly lack the acumen and experience to avoid such a mistake.

To be fair, you also made an assumption and you were in error. I am not under 35 and I'm not a "violent atheist".

Again, whatever your feelings are or your religion, it was not my intention to threaten it in any way.

Are you a person of faith? What faith specifically?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Geez, I certainly hope I didn't fall into that category. I didn't think my comments were "violent" in the least. I do honestly give you my apologies for dismissing your religious beliefs if that is what you feel I did. I will admit to saying I thought religion was "made up". And that probably set off alarm bells. I spoke too harshly perhaps. Mea culpa.

Just a brief note on "atheism", there is no need to "prove" a negative.

You’re free to hate and lie, Jank. It’s both common on JPP and one of the reasons I’m attracted to this forum since angry, hateful people are the most interesting to me.

Correct. However, to assert there is “nothing” is a positive, not a negative. People with higher education know the difference.

 

[Cancel 1 2023]

You’re free to hate and lie, Jank.

Thanks but I am not lying and I don't hate people of faith. May I ask why you seem so aggressive toward me? I mean calling me a "violent atheist" is not the most friendly approach.

Correct. However, to assert there is “nothing” is a positive, not a negative.

That's incorrect. In atheism people simply don't believe. It is the job of the believers to prove the existence of that which they believe in.

And this, interestingly, brings us back around to the Unicorn-cum-widget discussion from earlier. If one has no evidence for something why propose the existence of something if it is not needed?

If I can explain morality and ethics without any reference to anything outside of the physical universe why would I then need to suppose there is some aspect to it that is either "supernatural" or outside of the physical?

(Thanks for helping to bring this back around to one of the more contentious points that I never really got an answer to.)

 

[Dutch Uncle]

…I assume you are…

You’re free to assume anything you like, Jank.

My humble advice is that you should stop doing that. It often leads to wrongful conclusions as you have exhibited.

You are correct that I’m “assuming” you are under 35. My apologies. I should have stated you act like you are under 35 and then listed the reasons for my conclusion. Basically a lack of experience and education…like Perry PhD.

No, I am not religious, but it’s interesting that you leap to that conclusion. Presumably you did so because I spoke against hateful half-truths by self-avowed atheists.

 

[Cancel 1 2023]

You’re free to assume anything you like, Jank.

My humble advice is that you should stop doing that. It often leads to wrongful conclusions as you have exhibited.

You are correct that I’m “assuming” you are under 35. My apologies. I should have stated you act like you are under 35 and then listed the reasons for my conclusion. Basically a lack of experience and education…like Perry PhD.

No, I am not religious, but it’s interesting that you leap to that conclusion. Presumably you did so because I spoke against hateful half-truths by self-avowed atheists.

My apologies. Hopefully you are not a "violent atheist".

 

[Cancel 1 2023]

My humble advice is that you should stop doing that. It often leads to wrongful conclusions as you have exhibited.

You are correct that I’m “assuming” you are under 35. My apologies.

Apology gladly accepted. I took no real umbrage to it. I would LOVE to be 35! LOL. Assumptions are often problematic as you noted as well.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Thanks but I am not lying and I don't hate people of faith. May I ask why you seem so aggressive toward me? I mean calling me a "violent atheist" is not the most friendly approach.

That's incorrect. In atheism people simply don't believe. It is the job of the believers to prove the existence of that which they believe in….

You asserted I was religious. Is that a lie or just a confession you are ignorant or stupid? Disagreed on your hate for “people of faith”. Like Trumpers demeaning Lefties, telling half-truths and outright lies foments violence against innocent people.

I’m familiar with the argument but it’s bullshit. Agnostics don’t believe either way or simply accept that either position is unprovable. Atheists assume there is nothing beyond the physical. Theists assume there is. Both are acts of faith. Call it whatever you like, but if you believe “when you’re dead, you’re dead” then you are making an assumption without evidence.

If an atheist or theist wants to force or push their beliefs upon others, I agree, it’s up to them to prove their position. Otherwise they’re just being obnoxious assholes. However, people are free to believe whatever the fuck they want without having to prove it to obnoxious assholes demanding someone must prove their beliefs.

All we know is the physical universe. Everything else is a belief.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

My apologies. Hopefully you are not a "violent atheist".

I’m a violent agnostic.