[Pants-of-dog]

I guess you are incapable of answering my question, which is why you do not even realise that you are making a generalisation.

[Besoeker]

I guess you are incapable of answering my question, which is why you do not even realise that you are making a generalisation.

I gave you a direct answer.

[Pants-of-dog]

No, you did not. In fact, you completely avoided anwering the question.

[XogGyux]

Thought I'd put the original video back in in case someone want to follow this. Regarding 'chopping up', I was just referring to over-atomisation of someone's text, which is why I've referred to sentences (I've come across folks who even break up sentences), paragraphs are ok with me, which is why we instinctively use them (as you did above)

I didn't say I don't like the guy, and it's the technician's fault for the poor sound quality, it just that your video here didn't address what you posted it in response to, it's too much about which system is superior but I expect this from a (recent?) ex-Christian

You're right in that this so-called 'system' has only been labeled recently, religious people have been using it for centuries in conjunction with a religious foundation, they have finessed a basic set of principles with their own observations and common sense, so what you say about religious systems not moving at all is incorrect. Religion can and does address new challenges, it has been doing so through the ages.
The difference is that secularists now want jettison this foundation and claim that they can demonstrate a new and self-evident one from the ground up. Unfortunately the vast majority is built on egalitarianism and secularism cannot argue logically why we should use this, Matt himself jests that it is "because I say so" and leaves it at that. Monarchists (for instance) will be unconvinced by this and will go on to build upon inequality. Waiting for 'results' is a weak principle because it does not address the people who will act decisively in the present, if we had waited for the 'results' of slavery then we would probably still have a ('kinder'?) form of it and then, if some results were actually recognised, people would endlessly contest the interpretation of them.
The conjunction of religion and rational observation/reflection tends to work, religion provides the basic foundation until the results trickle in (if they ever do), even when they are vague, ignored, contested and/or thrown out.

So, to the thrust here.. 'secular morality' alone (and it wants to be alone, ie superior) cannot tell us why slavery is bad because it cannot say why egalitarianism is good and, if it does what it claims to do, it should be able to explain this. The Founding Fathers recognised this by saying "we believe these truths to be self-evident" and left it at that.. not a bad compromise.

Xog. Please don't reply to my previous post just yet, I've requested that it is moved to 'God as the Origin of Morality', which is much more apt than this cantankerous one.

I won't reply here as I agree this needs a thread of its own. I will reply on the thread that you opened for this topic. If anyone wan'ts to continue having this argument please go to the other thread.

Actually, both articles clearly show that only some atheists have just a lack of belief, while other atheists have different views.

Assuming that all atheists fit your favourite definition, and ignoring all others, is a generalisation.

I explained this before. Atheist is a term that ONLY describes lack of believe. That is it. Now, some (very few, I have never met one) atheist also deny the existence of god, those are also GNOSTIC which is a description of "knowledge". It's like referring to all leaders as dictators because a subcategory of leaders happen to be also dictators.

First of all you have not been conversing with me for over 2 weeks, second you forgot to include my counter-argument on your 5 billion people claim and its essential irrelevancy.

You are right, 2 weeks is tomorrow. Shoot me for rounding. You have followed my replies every since the very first post (dec 25th) 2 weeks tomorrow. So yeah by now you should have a reasonable understanding of what my views are and what my views are not in this very specific topic given the fact its been debated for a reasonable long period of time. Furthermore there have been a few other threads that are even older when similar topics have been discussed but I won't hold you responsible for knowing what it is there, nor do I need to because my views on this topic are very explicit in this thread alone.

You are now whinging that I am misrepresenting you, when your own statements are clear as the day, if you regret your statements and wish to retract them by all means do so, but do not pretend that you did not say what you did and that others are putting words in your mouth when in fact I am quoting you verbatim. In contrast you put words in my mouth out of the blue without ever quoting me.

When someone asks you if you want to get rid of religious folk and you say "Yes I do because they are Nazis", it doesn't really leave any room for misrepresentation.

You are misrepresenting me because you know the context those of my replies. Specifically the fact that you have been leading this debate towards this derailment. You asked and accused me multiple times of supporting some kind of genocide and each and every time I swatted your propositions. I stand what I said. Mod Edit: Redacted-Rule 2 no you are an intelligent person that knows (in part because I EXPLICITLY said it multiple times) that in this context eliminate religious people equates to eliminating religion (which in turns gets rid of religious people as those people will stop being religious, NO DEATHS). It is the same way as eliminating slaves, that does not mean KILLING SLAVES but rather eliminating the institution/idea that makes them slaves (funny enough I gave you a similar example with coal miners a few threads prior to your impromptu attacks). So no, i do not retract or amend what I said. It was not open to interpretation, I had clarified multiple times prior to your silly accusations (and the reason that I was forced to clarified is because you have been trying to push this ridiculous idea of yours) so you have no excuse.

You are talking about educating people but you cannot progress this conversation, I have asked you twice if you retract your statement and you still refuse to acknowledge your error, you would rather accuse me for what you said instead of own up to it. And in the end your intention of eliminating religion hinges on eliminating either the religious folk or their right to free speech. You cannot eliminate religion unless you do either of those 2 things or both, so stop pretending please because it is getting ridiculous. You swing from one suggestion to the other like a pendulum hoping that one of them will eventually stick. But both of these routes are quite 'evil' in the end and place those who argue them squarely in the category of those bad theists and atheists that we discussed earlier.

The fact that you keep pushing this ridiculous attack signals one of 2 things to me. Mod Edit: Redacted-Rule 2
One word for you,
Education.

[Pants-of-dog]

I explained this before. Atheist is a term that ONLY describes lack of believe. That is it. Now, some (very few, I have never met one) atheist also deny the existence of god, those are also GNOSTIC which is a description of "knowledge". It's like referring to all leaders as dictators because a subcategory of leaders happen to be also dictators.

I know that the incorrect generalisation (that atheist only describes a lack of belief) is comparable to assuming all leaders are dictators. I tried to explain that to Besoeker, but to no avail. Hopefully you will have better luck.

[Besoeker]

No, you did not. In fact, you completely avoided anwering the question.

I have a brilliant dog.

[Pants-of-dog]

That's nice.

What does that have to do with not answering my question?

[Besoeker]

That's nice.

What does that have to do with not answering my question?

Everything but I didn't think you would get it.
No problem.

[Pants-of-dog]

What you think about me is not the topic. Why do you make it personal?

[Besoeker]

What you think about me is not the topic. Why do you make it personal?

You are quire right.
My dyslexic dog would no doubt agree.
Despite that, he is a handsome chap.

[Pants-of-dog]

And now you are deliberately ignoring another question.

[Besoeker]

And now you are deliberately ignoring another question.

I didn't. I posted a a non contreversial point.

[Pants-of-dog]

People can just scroll up and see for themselves that you ignored my question. Your denial is weird and meaningless.

Let me know when you have something to say about the topic.

[XogGyux]

People can just scroll up and see for themselves that you ignored my question. Your denial is weird and meaningless.

Let me know when you have something to say about the topic.

Why do you keep feeding the troll?

[Pants-of-dog]

I am just wondering how far he can go with someone replying to him in the same way he replies to others.

[XogGyux]

I am just wondering how far he can go with someone replying to him in the same way he replies to others.

It seems that others have realized the futility of what you are doing.

[Pants-of-dog]

I thought it was obvious from the beginning.

Oh well.

[noemon]

You are right, 2 weeks is tomorrow. Shoot me for rounding. You have followed my replies every since the very first post (dec 25th) 2 weeks tomorrow. So yeah by now you should have a reasonable understanding of what my views are and what my views are not in this very specific topic given the fact its been debated for a reasonable long period of time. Furthermore there have been a few other threads that are even older when similar topics have been discussed but I won't hold you responsible for knowing what it is there, nor do I need to because my views on this topic are very explicit in this thread alone.

I entered this conversation on January 3rd that is 3 days from the day the comment was made. The December 25th comment has absolutely nothing to do with the current conversation but with the OP. I don't know what you think I am supposed to know about you, I can only go with what you say.

You are misrepresenting me because you know the context those of my replies.

Clearly better than you do.

Specifically the fact that you have been leading this debate towards this derailment. You asked and accused me multiple times of supporting some kind of genocide and each and every time I swatted your propositions.

You doubled down you mean because you thought it was edgy.

I stand what I said. no you are an intelligent person that knows (in part because I EXPLICITLY said it multiple times) that in this context eliminate religious people equates to eliminating religion (which in turns gets rid of religious people as those people will stop being religious, NO DEATHS). It is the same way as eliminating slaves, that does not mean KILLING SLAVES but rather eliminating the institution/idea that makes them slaves (funny enough I gave you a similar example with coal miners a few threads prior to your impromptu attacks). So no, i do not retract or amend what I said. It was not open to interpretation, I had clarified multiple times prior to your silly accusations (and the reason that I was forced to clarified is because you have been trying to push this ridiculous idea of yours) so you have no excuse.

You are going to eliminate religion without persecuting religious folk and without removing their right to free speech and their right to worship. You are going to wish the institution away and the institution will simply go away?
Removing slavery is enhancing a human rights, not reducing a human's rights. People take it kindly when someone enhances their human rights, they do not take it kindly when their human rights are reduced.

Whatever benefit of the doubt is granted to you it is clear that you a) hate religious people, b) want to eliminate their right to worship, c) their right to participate in civil life. You have yet to provide a single argument as to how you are going to achieve this without persecuting them or without persecuting their freedoms or both.

[XogGyux]

@noemon
First of all, I do not need your benefit of doubt because I was explicit.
2nd the fact that it will be a hard endeavour (I never doubted that, in fact I know it) does not mean it is impossible and more importantly does not mean that the only way to accomplish this is via genocide or human right's violation.
Lastly. I already addressed a few of the many things that we can (and should) do to address this. Including but not limited to increase in education of the public, enforcing separation of church and state to the HIGHEST standard (certainly stop subsidizing churches to begin with, ban any mention of religion in any OFFICIAL/legal address (even behind closed doors), banning any government favoritism to any religion, etc). Will this alone eliminate (NOT KILLLLLLLLLLL) religion tomorrow? no, will this make the next generation less gullible and more resistant to the brainwashings of religion? definitely.

[noemon]

Church & State are already separate in the US, Hollywood has been brainwashing the masses for decades. And most importantly extreme Soviet persecution did not manage to eliminate religion and you are going to eliminate it without persecuting anybody and anyone's religious rights.