That is what I'm asking for evidence for yeh.

To sum it up all you have spoke about is how correct you are, how you think I'm trying to take advantage of you being easily triggered (just by disagreeing with you) and how dense my arguement is.

And inbetween you've babbled about scare quotes being applied to full sentences and still haven't justified why you even mentioned that.

So yeh I'm asking for evidence and reasoning as to why the phrase stoning to death has to apply to just biblical stoning to death when scare quotes are surrounding that word.

and a reasonable rational explanation as to why other opinions are dense.

I'm English and I'm aware of the phrase light as a feather I know it's talkin about the weight of a feather I also aware of the phrase stoning to death and I'm aware that the phrase is used beyond the biblical or religious sense of stoning to death and that an atheist can stone someone to death. And probably has stoned someone to death

So go ahead.

No using fallacious arguments from personal incredulity or just saying it's obvious why you're right. Or laughing emojis.
Just a straight forward reasonable answer.

(March 28, 2017 at 3:11 pm)TheAtheologian Wrote:

(March 28, 2017 at 9:35 am)SteveII Wrote: Then you are equivocating. You don't really mean what is the most deadly religion, you mean what religion did people correctly or incorrectly conduct violence in the name of. These are not the same question.

Call it what you want, everyone reading the question knows that it doesn't literally mean a religion killing someone, but the people influenced by their religious beliefs. I highly doubt you thought that either. 
"Correctly" and "incorrectly" conducting violence is your false dichotomy of objective religious morality that varies ideologically, so no, your point against the question is not valid.

No, correctly and incorrectly conducting violence can easily be ascertained from the religion's foundational documents/teachings and has nothing to do with objective morality. It is silly to say a religion that teaches "turning the other cheek" is responsible for violence. It is clearly man-made add-ons and illegitimate reasoning that gets you to violence. You can complain all you want about a particular church organization's actions, but to conflate those with Christianity is shoddy reasoning.

(March 28, 2017 at 3:24 pm)paulpablo Wrote: That is what I'm asking for evidence for yeh.

Hey guys! Let me bring you up to speed if you haven't been paying attention!

There's this guy on AF here called Paulpablo and he's asking me for evidence that a meme saying that "no one was 'stoned to death' by an atheist" is referring to the Biblical act of stoning someone to death...

He said "I doubt that statement is true" because he wants to be literal minded and strip it of biblical connotations just to be obtuse.

Yeah.... sure... there's a meme that says "No one was ever 'stoned to death' by an atheist" which is clear enough without the scare quotes but even WITH them apparently this just means no atheists ever threw stones at someone until they were dead and has nothing to do with the biblical act of stoning people to death at all.

I know, sad right? But hey... here's an idea! Let's just all play dumb here too so Paul can feel at home!



Sorry Paul but can you tell me what "yeh" means? I wouldn't want to presume you meant "yeah" or "yes" because I can be intentionally dense like you too! Just wanting you to feel welcome! I wouldn't wanna project my own opinions onto you so I just have to ask!

---

(March 28, 2017 at 3:24 pm)paulpablo Wrote: No using fallacious arguments from personal incredulity

Oh great so you don't understand logical fallacies either.

(March 28, 2017 at 4:09 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(March 28, 2017 at 3:11 pm)TheAtheologian Wrote: Call it what you want, everyone reading the question knows that it doesn't literally mean a religion killing someone, but the people influenced by their religious beliefs. I highly doubt you thought that either. 
"Correctly" and "incorrectly" conducting violence is your false dichotomy of objective religious morality that varies ideologically, so no, your point against the question is not valid.

No, correctly and incorrectly conducting violence can easily be ascertained from the religion's foundational documents/teachings and has nothing to do with objective morality. It is silly to say a religion that teaches "turning the other cheek" is responsible for violence. It is clearly man-made add-ons and illegitimate reasoning that gets you to violence. You can complain all you want about a particular church organization's actions, but to conflate those with Christianity is shoddy reasoning.

A religion's foundational teachings are what may convince a person to commit violent acts, a religions teachings are what people may use to justify their violence. Ideologically, their religious beliefs applied to the world are interpreted to be used for certain actions. "Correctly" and "incorrectly" is exactly a false dichotomy, since what you claim to be incorrect and correct about a religion isn't necessarily objective among religious believers (which are what make up a religious group), but is dependent upon the religious conception. The only way out of this is to assume the objective truth of a specific religion that gives falsifiability to religious believers that make up the religious group and their teachings.

(March 28, 2017 at 4:29 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote:

(March 28, 2017 at 3:24 pm)paulpablo Wrote: That is what I'm asking for evidence for yeh.

Hey guys! Let me bring you up to speed if you haven't been paying attention!

There's this guy on AF here called Paulpablo and he's asking me for evidence that a meme saying that "no one was 'stoned to death' by an atheist" is referring to the Biblical act of stoning someone to death...

He said "I doubt that statement is true" because he wants to be literal minded and strip it of biblical connotations just to be obtuse.

Yeah.... sure... there's a meme that says "No one was ever 'stoned to death' by an atheist" which is clear enough without the scare quotes but even WITH them apparently this just means no atheists ever threw stones at someone until they were dead and has nothing to do with the biblical act of stoning people to death at all.

I know, sad right? But hey... here's an idea! Let's just all play dumb here too so Paul can feel at home!



Sorry Paul but can you tell me what "yeh" means? I wouldn't want to presume you meant "yeah" or "yes" because I can be intentionally dense like you too! Just wanting you to feel welcome! I wouldn't wanna project my own opinions onto you so I just have to ask!

---

(March 28, 2017 at 3:24 pm)paulpablo Wrote: No using fallacious arguments from personal incredulity

Oh great so you don't understand logical fallacies either.

Yeh, I think everyone is up to speed.  It's very simple.  Just provide evidence that the phrase stoned to death within that meme definitely means stoned to death in relation to biblical influence and not just a general term of stoned to death. 

You saying it's obvious why, or laughing or mocking don't count as a reasonable argument.

It seems like you're making a mountain out of a mole hill.

The evidence could be there and I might have missed it.  Scare quotes surrounding a word don't mean this word is to be taken only in the sense of biblical influence, they can be used to show contempt for a word or phrase which is what my reasoning involved and I presented to you.

You haven't yet presented any reasoning for your argument and I don't think you're ever going to because I don't think you can.

(March 28, 2017 at 5:35 pm)paulpablo Wrote: Yeh, I think everyone is up to speed.  It's very simple.  Just provide evidence that the phrase stoned to death within that meme definitely means stoned to death in relation to biblical influence and not just a general term of stoned to death. 

I'm too busy reading your ostensive definition of the word "obtuse".

(March 28, 2017 at 6:01 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote:

(March 28, 2017 at 5:35 pm)paulpablo Wrote: Yeh, I think everyone is up to speed.  It's very simple.  Just provide evidence that the phrase stoned to death within that meme definitely means stoned to death in relation to biblical influence and not just a general term of stoned to death. 

I'm too busy reading your ostensive definition of the word "obtuse".

Ok I'll provide more reasoning and evidence ontop of what I've already provided as to why your argument is incorrect and faulty while you do that.

You're claim is that the phrase "stoned to death" in the meme "No one was ever 'stoned to death' by an atheist" is definitely related to biblical influence and the biblical sense of stoning to death.

Now that meme is talking about an huge time frame, since the dawn of man and from before the bible.  It's also talking about stoning to death which is also before the bible. Also stoning to death is a punishment employed by civilizations that were outside the realms of biblical influence in terms of geographical location.

Therefore it's definitely a faulty assumption to just assume that "stoned to death" as a phrase being used that way would be linked to the biblical text or biblical influence.

It's evident within the meme there's no reference to biblical texts or even any religious texts and you've just made an assumption that the scare quotes for some reason make the phrase linked to biblical texts.

I also don't know why you insist that the phrase is linked to biblical texts which is something I've previously asked you about. Not any Islamic beliefs or texts or any other religion, just pure bible.

You aren't even giving your argument any room for manouver on that point.  You're repeatedly saying this phrase is certainly talking about stoning to death in a biblical sense with no evidence brought forth.

You're asking me to provide a logical argument and treating this as a debate and expecting me to use deductive reasoning. I'm asking you to not be intentionally obtuse and to use a bit of common sense and inductive reasoning (and it's not as if it requires fucking much and you're not that dumb hence why you're being disingenuous as fuck).

Some things are more likely than other things. The fact that the most likely explanation when an anti-religious meme says no atheist was ever 'stoned to death' is that it is actually making a point about the fact that many people were stoned to death because of religion due to the biblical act as stoning..... the fact that that is the most likely explanation based on the context shouldn't need an explanation. You are not four fucking years old I shouldn't have to teach you to use basic common sense in context... f you think that that is not the most plausible interpretation and that all interpretations are equally plausible/implausible including the literal act of stoning then you're just a fucking idiot.

Either that or you're being intentionally obtuse or disingenuous as fuck. I think the latter makes more sense considering you do this shit all the time.

An anti-religious meme would have NO REASON to randomly talk about the act of throwing stones at people until they are dead for non-religious and non-biblical reasons. To randomly say no atheists throw stones at people makes no sense. It obviously means in the context of religion you fucking moron.

You are seriously pretending that an anti-religious meme isn't talking about biblical stoning when it mentions how an atheist has never 'stoned someone to death'.

I have never known such a persistently disingenuous cunt in all my life.

---

(March 28, 2017 at 6:16 pm)paulpablo Wrote: Ok I'll provide more reasoning and evidence ontop of what I've already provided

You say this like you don't even know the difference between reasoning and evidence. Those are not interchangeable things. An argument is not evidence. We're not talking about evidence here we're talking about my refusal to teach you how to read things in context like you're a child and your retarded insistence on asking me to provide 'proof' for an anti-religious meme talking about 'stoning to death' being something to do with religious stoning.

(March 28, 2017 at 7:34 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote: You're asking me to provide a logical argument and treating this as a debate and expecting me to use deductive reasoning. I'm asking you to not be intentionally obtuse and to use a bit of common sense and inductive reasoning (and it's not as if it requires fucking much and you're not that dumb hence why you're being disingenuous as fuck).

Some things are more likely than other things. The fact that the most likely explanation when an anti-religious meme says no atheist was ever 'stoned to death' is that it is actually making a point about the fact that many people were stoned to death because of religion due to the biblical act as stoning..... the fact that that is the most likely explanation based on the context shouldn't need an explanation. You are not four fucking years old I shouldn't have to teach you to use basic common sense in context... f you think that that is not the most plausible interpretation and that all interpretations are equally plausible/implausible including the literal act of stoning then you're just a fucking idiot.

Either that or you're being intentionally obtuse or disingenuous as fuck. I think the latter makes more sense considering you do this shit all the time.

An anti-religious meme would have NO REASON to randomly talk about the act of throwing stones at people until they are dead for non-religious and non-biblical reasons. To randomly say no atheists throw stones at people makes no sense. It obviously means in the context of religion you fucking moron.

You are seriously pretending that an anti-religious meme isn't talking about biblical stoning when it mentions how an atheist has never 'stoned someone to death'.

I have never known such a persistently disingenuous cunt in all my life.

---

(March 28, 2017 at 6:16 pm)paulpablo Wrote: Ok I'll provide more reasoning and evidence ontop of what I've already provided

You say this like you don't even know the difference between reasoning and evidence. Those are not interchangeable things. An argument is not evidence. We're not talking about evidence here we're talking about my refusal to teach you how to read things in context like you're a child and your retarded insistence on asking me to provide 'proof' for an anti-religious meme talking about 'stoning to death' being something to do with religious stoning.

Your logic is faulty again.  Being a part of an meme about religion doesnt change the meaning of the words within the meme.

So for example....

This is a meme about Islam

"A non Muslim has never 'stoned to death" anybody ever."

This meme is incorrect.  The scare quotes don't indicate that the stoning to death is exclusively linked to Islamic beliefs.  A reader would have to jump to an assumption in order to think this is obviously only talking about stoning under Islam.

The truth is that people of all faiths and atheists have stoned people to death which isn't reflected in this meme relating to Islam or the meme previously posted by Min.

"No one was ever 'stoned to death' by an atheist" is also most likely incorrect and a statement I doubt it true.  The scare quotes don't indicate that the stoning to death is religious they just indicate an action and claim that atheists don't do this specific act.

I'm being very genuine and I don't believe my argument is moronic or obtuse.

(March 28, 2017 at 9:23 pm)paulpablo Wrote: Your logic is faulty again.  Being a part of an meme about religion doesnt change the meaning of the words within the meme.

Never said such a thing. Your logic is so terrible you can't even spot logical steps correctly and you see argumentation that isn't there. I never made such an argument, shit-for-brains.

Quote:So for example....

This is a meme about Islam

"A non Muslim has never 'stoned to death" anybody ever."

This meme is incorrect.  The scare quotes don't indicate that the stoning to death is exclusively linked to Islamic beliefs.  A reader would have to jump to an assumption in order to think this is obviously only talking about stoning under Islam.

And this is why, retard, taking things out of context and introducing false analogies does no good.

Stoning people to death as a punishment originated in the Old Testament that predates Islam. The whole point of the meme is that atheism doesn't lead to stoning people to death but religion does.

You are so literal minded it's infuriating.

Quote:The truth is that people of all faiths and atheists have stoned people to death which isn't reflected in this meme relating to Islam or the meme previously posted by Min.

Stoning people to death is a religious practice. The fact you think that the meme is referring to literally anyone throwing stones at people until they die even if it's a bunch of atheists in the 21st century stoning each other to death just for the hell of it just shows what a dense moron you are.

It's an Old Testament thing, dude. The point of the meme is that all 3 abrahamic religions originated from the Old Testament with a bunch of horrible shit such as stoning people to death and atheism isn't dangerous but religion is,.

YES the meme says nothing like that but that's because it's NOT FUCKING LITERAL YOU LITERAL-MINDED FUCKTARD.

Quote:"No one was ever 'stoned to death' by an atheist" is also most likely incorrect and a statement I doubt it true.  The scare quotes don't indicate that the stoning to death is religious they just indicate an action and claim that atheists don't do this specific act.

It *is* a completely true statement when not taken literally and the scare quotes are only to try and indicate that the meme isn't meant to be taken too seriously and it's just a stab at religion. But unfortunately some people such of yourself are retarded enough to answer it literally like you do.

Quote:I'm being very genuine and I don't believe my argument is moronic or obtuse.

You haven't fucking made an argument nor have you refuted any. You wouldn't know argumentation if it smacked you in the face.

You're so fucking disingenuous in your literal play-dumb obtuse responses. You do this shit all the time. You'll probably react to memes such as this:



by saying that "huh that's not true because atheism isn't an immoral belief it's not a belief at all let alone a belief that all those things are wrong. Atheism is simply not believing in gods."

Which is all technically correct BUT THE WHOLE POINT OF THE MEME IS NOT TO BE TECHNICALLY CORRECT IT'S CALLED FACETIOUSNESS YOU DUMB CUNT.

And you do a very poor impression of an intelligent person. I'd tell you to try harder but I'm tired of seeing such epic fails.

For fuck's sake. I have not spent any time on this thread trying to make a logical argument. You are not worthy of that shit and I learned that fucking months and months and months ago.

You don't understand half the shit you talk about. Dumb cunt. Buy a dictionary.

Now I'm going back to bed