[Serious] Over the top

[Abaddon_ire]

Your personal experiences in church may not reflect the entirety of Christianity.

It certainly reflects catholicism. Basically, Jesus loves you but you are unworthy of his love because you are an evil dirty person unworthy of being loved. That is the insidious nature of it. Couch the bile in the language of love.

OK, not christian. Taking into consideration all your defense of religion and religious thought, what are you? Generic theist? You indicated that you teach/have students, what do you teach? 

Considering your behavior I think not telling Shell and the rest of us what you consider yourself is disingenuous.

The definition that this forum demands is that an atheist is anyone who lacks a belief in God. 

I lack a belief in God. I am not a theist, generic or brand-name.

Will that be considered sufficient for my trial? 

Nope. That is a carefully crafted non-denial denial. Nixon would be proud. You could have your very own little quixotic form of faith and none of that would be untrue. Just dishonest evasion.

[GrandizerII]

To say that human beings are tainted with sin by nature but we should love them regardless isn't exactly flattering, and it's reasonable to say that this shows contempt for human nature (which in other words is misanthropic).

Well, I think that acknowledging the fact that people are a mixed bag, and it's in our nature to do things we judge to be morally bad, is not misanthropic. 

But if you want to define things that way, I guess we just disagree.

Yep, we're going to have to agree to disagree.

See you in another thread!

[Belacqua]

You could have your very own little quixotic form of faith and none of that would be untrue. Just dishonest evasion.

And I might also be David Koch, posting from hell!

You'll never know!

---

Here is an over-the-top statement, made just recently:

Christianity is none of those things today. It is not non-violent, commune living, charitable or kind. It cares not for the sick, nor each other and very much cares about material possessions.

By offering this with no qualifications, the poster makes it seem as though Christianity has no opposition to violence, no commitment to charity, doesn't care for the sick or other people, and only cares about material possessions.

I'm sure there are Christians who are like that. But that is not a reasonable definition of Christianity. In fact, there are good Christians in the world who care about those things.

By pointing at the very worst people in the group, and pretending that all the others are the same, we descend to Trump level. Immigrants are murderers, etc.

[LastPoet]

Why do you think I want it from strangers on the Internet?

Your thoughts here betray you. I am forced to believe your incessant ramblings are just some sort of OCD, believing what you just said.

Ya know, better learn to be honest with others, only then you can be honest with yourself.

[Belacqua]

Your thoughts here betray you. 

ESP isn't real, so you don't know my thoughts other than through the words I have typed here.

If you feel my sentences are inaccurate I'd be happy to discuss them with you.

[Abaddon_ire]

You could have your very own little quixotic form of faith and none of that would be untrue. Just dishonest evasion.

And I might also be David Koch, posting from hell!

You'll never know!

Wanna know why we will never know?

It's because of your dishonest evasion.

You simply refuse to be honest about what you do believe and deploy all manner of tactics to actively avoid answering that question.

[Deesse23]

Your personal experiences in church may not reflect the entirety of Christianity.

It certainly reflects catholicism. Basically, Jesus loves you but you are unworthy of his love because you are an evil dirty person unworthy of being loved. That is the insidious nature of it. Couch the bile in the language of love.

The definition that this forum demands is that an atheist is anyone who lacks a belief in God. 

I lack a belief in God. I am not a theist, generic or brand-name.

Will that be considered sufficient for my trial? 

Nope. That is a carefully crafted non-denial denial. Nixon would be proud. You could have your very own little quixotic form of faith and none of that would be untrue. Just dishonest evasion.

The capital "G"s

[LastPoet]

Your thoughts here betray you. 

ESP isn't real, so you don't know my thoughts other than through the words I have typed here.

If you feel my sentences are inaccurate I'd be happy to discuss them with you.

So your words typed here are not your thoughs? What philosopher will you quote then?

[Belacqua]

So your words typed here are not your thoughs?  

Again, if you want to make some specific argument or accusation, I'll be happy to answer that. 

What you're accusing me of, though, is very vague. You can discern some hidden truth behind what I actually said? You have confidence in your interpretations to the point that you know my own mind better than I do? I am skeptical of this. 

What philosopher will you quote then? 

I am happy to quote and refer to the ideas of people who are smarter than I am, when their thoughts are relevant.

[Abaddon_ire]

So your words typed here are not your thoughs?  

Again, if you want to make some specific argument or accusation, I'll be happy to answer that. 

What you're accusing me of, though, is very vague.

That's what happens when YOU are vague about what it is YOU actually believe.

You can discern some hidden truth behind what I actually said?

Yup. You are intentionally concealing your actual beliefs.

You have confidence in your interpretations to the point that you know my own mind better than I do? I am skeptical of this. 

You exhibit all of the traits of a "no-claimer". If it walks like a duck....

What philosopher will you quote then? 

I am happy to quote and refer to the ideas of people who are smarter than I am, when their thoughts are relevant.

If they are so much smarter than you, how can you discern whether or not their thoughts are or are not relevant?