(November 19, 2012 at 2:48 pm)Creed of Heresy Wrote:

(November 19, 2012 at 2:03 pm)JohnDG Wrote: Every person is spiteful, envious, angry, greedy ect. Where we channel those negative emotions is different for everyone. Theist project these on people of other religions or none so they can demonize people outside of their religion and reinforce their beliefs that they are right about everything.

To certain extents, sure. I think it's more about the rationality for greed, spite, anger and all these emotions we associate as "bad." Me, for example. I'm angry because events outside of my influence and control must constantly dictate my life in ways I feel they shouldn't. I'm greedy because I feel I've endured enough shit and that I deserve better by the virtue of my own efforts, though my efforts are impeded again by powers beyond my grasp. And I am envious because people like Paris Hilton and the Kardashians exist; people who have done nothing their entire lives yet have everything while I have to fight like a rabid animal for anything. But these are valid reasons, as I'm sure most here would agree. The only time these emotions truly become bad, ironically, is when they are used by the religious...and the religious ALWAYS feel these things. And you pointed out exactly WHY they're so bad.

And of course it once again ties into hypocrisy, especially that displayed by Christians; they who shame everyone else for feeling things like lust and greed and avarice and anger and yet they are often sexual deviants, hungry for more of all they can lay their hands upon, and always raging against anyone who isn't just like them.

Hell. Just look at Faux News if you want a perfect example of all of that. Every single person on Faux News probably self-identifies as a Christian and yet all of them are guilty of the things they bitch about.

You sound pretty miserable.

There is no excuse for taking your frustrations out on other people, whether for real or imaginary reasons.

I hope you get some help for your problems.

You mean the hatred by the racist majority (at least in America) formerly directed at minorities but now directed at religion because it became politically incorrect to go against those minorities directly.

(November 21, 2012 at 12:34 am)Polaris Wrote: You mean the hatred by the racist majority (at least in America) formerly directed at minorities but now directed at religion because it became politically incorrect to go against those minorities directly.

...? The majority is also religious, so...it is racist against its own religion?

(November 21, 2012 at 12:45 am)Darkstar Wrote:

(November 21, 2012 at 12:34 am)Polaris Wrote: You mean the hatred by the racist majority (at least in America) formerly directed at minorities but now directed at religion because it became politically incorrect to go against those minorities directly.

...? The majority is also religious, so...it is racist against its own religion?

Religious as in actually believing or religious in saying they are religious just because of tradition?

I also called them the racist majority. I said it in this way because I called the majority something else before and it was frowned upon because most on this site belong to that racial group.

(November 21, 2012 at 12:34 am)Polaris Wrote: You mean the hatred by the racist majority (at least in America) formerly directed at minorities but now directed at religion because it became politically incorrect to go against those minorities directly.

Your statement makes no sense. Christians have always been this country's racist majority. Your statement implies that, since it is no longer considered acceptable for Christians to hate racial minorities, Christians instead hate Christianity.

(November 21, 2012 at 2:22 am)Ryantology Wrote:

(November 21, 2012 at 12:34 am)Polaris Wrote: You mean the hatred by the racist majority (at least in America) formerly directed at minorities but now directed at religion because it became politically incorrect to go against those minorities directly.

Your statement makes no sense. Christians have always been this country's racist majority. Your statement implies that, since it is no longer considered acceptable for Christians to hate racial minorities, Christians instead hate Christianity.

White people are considered the majority. When people say the majority, they typically refer to Caucasians, especially those of Anglo origin.

(November 21, 2012 at 3:06 am)Polaris Wrote:

(November 21, 2012 at 2:22 am)Ryantology Wrote: Your statement makes no sense. Christians have always been this country's racist majority. Your statement implies that, since it is no longer considered acceptable for Christians to hate racial minorities, Christians instead hate Christianity.

White people are considered the majority. When people say the majority, they typically refer to Caucasians, especially those of Anglo origin.

Given that practically every example of institutional racism in American history has been justified in Biblical terms, from black slavery to segregation to the Ku Klux Klan to discrimination against Jews, Catholics, and Muslims, to the extermination of Native Americans, "Christian" (or, if you prefer, simply "Theist") fits the bill more accurately than simply "caucasian".

(November 21, 2012 at 3:28 am)Ryantology Wrote:

(November 21, 2012 at 3:06 am)Polaris Wrote: White people are considered the majority. When people say the majority, they typically refer to Caucasians, especially those of Anglo origin.

Given that practically every example of institutional racism in American history has been justified in Biblical terms, from black slavery to segregation to the Ku Klux Klan to discrimination against Jews, Catholics, and Muslims, to the extermination of Native Americans, "Christian" (or, if you prefer, simply "Theist") fits the bill more accurately than simply "caucasian".

Association fallacy, for 500?

(November 21, 2012 at 4:01 am)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: Association fallacy, for 500?

It's nice that you have your list of logical fallacies bookmarked, but you should take the time to understand them.

When Christianity is directly cited as a justification for racist policies time and time again, from the devastation of natives to Jim Crow, that goes somewhat beyond mere 'guilt by association'.

(November 21, 2012 at 2:59 pm)Ryantology Wrote:

(November 21, 2012 at 4:01 am)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: Association fallacy, for 500?

It's nice that you have your list of logical fallacies bookmarked, but you should take the time to understand them.

When Christianity is directly cited as a justification for racist policies time and time again, from the devastation of natives to Jim Crow, that goes somewhat beyond mere 'guilt by association'.

Merely being directly cited as a justification does not ascribe guilt to any ideology.

If someone in the 30s ascribed a justification of the Holocaust, directly, because atheism is true, that doesn't make atheism responsible for the Holocaust.

Association fallacy, for 1000!