Toaster strudel alliance takes on drugs, atheists and liberalism

[CleanShavenJesus]

You're talking down to people. You, in your mind, think you're "bettering" people. I've read your posts.

Every single post I've seen by you, you claim to have this "knowledge" of atheists, half the things you say you never provide any sort of evidence for. Every single thread you make up a percent to help yourself, but it doesn't really work. You come into every one of these topics with bullshit, then you keep asking why nobody has refuted said bullshit. It's hard to refute "the atheist movement is run by druggies" because there's no reason for that to be even true.

Oh, wait, sorry, you "know" that it is. What percentage of atheists are druggies this time? 30%? 60%? Half? All numbers thrown out by you.

[jstrodel]

No reason to think that is true, even in the midst of a thread called ecstasy. Man, those Christians are so indoctrinated.

[LastPoet]

You won't be able to type truer words on purpose.

[Napoléon]

That is not self righteous. Self righteousness goes something like this, when someone makes up something out of thin air and says "it is always evil to make statements about what is evil". That is self righteous.

You really couldn't make this shit up.

Oh wait.

You can.

[jstrodel]

You didn't make an argument to say that though. You didn't refute what I said, you responded with internet humor or something like that. Why can't you refute the argument, if it is fallacious?

What i posted was an argument, what you posted was just an accusation. You didn't provide any evidence.

What prevents atheists from arguing their points instead of just heaping accusations and using non-rational persuasion techniques like mocking to make their point?

[Esquilax]

That is your opinion about what is sexist. Do you actually have an example of a mainstream church that advocates the hatred or exploitation of women?

And thus we begin the majestic migration of the goalposts...

Listen, dude: the baptists are a mainstream religious movement, and their goddamn charter demands that women act as servants to their husbands. How much more exploitative can you get?

Well, the Christian church has made a lot of mistake over the years. I don't think that feminism is really a simple issue at all. I am not going to defend the issue of the equal rights amendment because I don't know that much about it. I do not think that feminism is a black and white issue and I think that many churches have had backwards attitudes towards women, sometimes extremely backwards.

Well, lemme help you out on the equal rights amendment front: the bill was simple, it just ensured equal rights for both genders. That's the official wording. And in response, some of the more prominent christians of the time came out to say it was an assault on family values, and tried to block it. But hey, I love that you're handwaving committed, institutionalized misogyny as just a tetchy little mistake. Classy.

This does not answer the question of what major denomination today promotes overtly misogynistic or racists views. The examples of Christians historically who have been wrong about many issues is indeed a serious issue, but you can cite many Christians on the other side of the issue just as easily. John Wesley was against slavery in the 18th century and Martin Luther King was one of the leaders in the civil rights movement.

You really wanna be talking about Martin Luther King given the number of southern preachers who came out against him?

It is true that there have been many Christian churches (I would argue, real Christians, not false churches) that have embraced evil views. This is a serious issue, and not something that I take lightly. But there also have been billions of Christians historically, and they have taken a very large number of different positions.

It really does seem like you only have a nuanced view of things with regards to your own position. You're more than happy to generalize viciously when it comes to the atheist one.

I would say politically, the fruit of the Christian church overall has been to create and define in many ways Western Civilization, which, despite all the bloodshed, has been the most powerful, prosperous, free and well developed civilization that has ever existed (and the civilization that gave birth to the modern atheist movement).

And I would say that people did that, not religion. Now what?

Not sure what you mean.

I mean that you keep bringing up Hitchens and a few others as if they're these pillars of the atheist community and therefore their entire belief structure necessarily reflects atheism as a whole. So, by that logic, all the well known preachers of christianity that opposed feminism etc, are all binding reflections of christianity.

No doubt you disagree, for no good reason.

---

You didn't make an argument to say that though. You didn't refute what I said, you responded with internet humor or something like that. Why can't you refute the argument, if it is fallacious?

What i posted was an argument, what you posted was just an accusation. You didn't provide any evidence.

What prevents atheists from arguing their points instead of just heaping accusations and using non-rational persuasion techniques like mocking to make their point?

Do you still not understand that the reason we sometimes don't bother responding to your points is because your entire position is often so silly and overexaggerated it's genuinely hard to believe you're even being serious?

[Napoléon]

You didn't make an argument to say that though. You didn't refute what I said, you responded with internet humor or something like that. Why can't you refute the argument, if it is fallacious?

Don't mistake not wanting to for inability. Plenty of people have already said what I would have throughout the thread. If I voiced the same points as them you'd probably throw a hissy fit about how we have a mob mentality and that we are ganging up on you (maybe you wouldn't but with previous christians I've heard the same thing). So giving a kudos to the posts I agree with seems logical.

Honestly, arguing with someone who continually lumps atheists into the same boat and accuses all atheists of promoting drug abuse is downright insulting, not to mention disingenuous and a waste of my personal time.

Now I'm not complaining if you want to act like that, but don't come crying like you want a 'rational conversation' when you've shown you're only interested in hearing your own dogmatic misconceptions, and only interested in arguing against some sort of atheist worldview that doesn't exist.

Maybe try actually asking for our individual opinions on the topic instead of assuming we are pro drugs, for the reason that we are atheists and we have no morals and we are such bad people. That's certainly the vibe you're giving out, and frankly I have no time for it, except to make the occasional wise crack because I find it funny.


Hope that answers your question.

[Faith No More]

So many misconceptions and false generalizations in this thread that I'm feeling overwhelmed...

...however, since I'm just a fornicating, drug addled, leftist attempting to justify his immoral existence by denying god exists, I'll just post this...

---

---

[Cinjin]

This is how I read all of jStrudel's posts:
<read with deep neanderthal monkey-like voice for full sarcastic effect>


"oooga - boooga"

"Atheist bad. Drugs bad. Sex bad."
"God good. Bible good. Me .... good."
"oooga - boooga"

"Me poopy here??"

[Napoléon]

Let's give the guy some credit Cinj, he's a fair bit more eloquent than most christians we get on here.