How many of you would punish religious people for being religious?

[abaris]

1) Well, that was the intelligent thing to do.

No, it's the ruthless and ultimately helpless thing to do. If someone disagrees with you and you persecute them for it, it only shows, you're not even convinced by your own ideas. You can't provide the better arguments, so just do away with them, if it's in your power.

[The Grand Nudger]

1) Pretty easy to do when you're executing the others and destroying the work of competing views as a point of policy, huh?

2) Bit of a mis-statement, btw, their views were abandoned by the church, and have no purchase in contemporary philosophy.  I guess that's something that falls by the wayside in the carousel of apologetics.

1) Well, that was the intelligent thing to do.

2) That's to be expected in a world that's growing increasingly godless and shitty.

Swing and a miss.  The catholic church is no more or less godly than it was when it was onboard with them, or when it abandoned them.  No more or less so as it's looking to reassume them since the replacements also failed, which is hilariously why you believed that they were still a thing.

They're scraping the bottom of the barrel at this point, returning to wells they already deemed toxic for lack of any other place to wet their whistles.

-and you...just ignorant of all of it, and so, fractally wrong...all the time...about everything. I'm not even mad, that's impressive.

[Ahriman]

1) Well, that was the intelligent thing to do.

No, it's the ruthless and ultimately helpless thing to do. If someone disagrees with you and you persecute them for it, it only shows, you're not even convinced by your own ideas. You can't provide the better arguments, so just do away with them, if it's in your power.

Inferior ideas get destroyed. Simple as that. It's a pattern as old as history itself.

[The Grand Nudger]

Case in point, neither aquinas nor augustine, nor the institutions they represented - managed to destroy the ideas they had hoped to - by destroying the people.

Your "good idea" was a bust, in mere reality. Just one massive dick punching own-goal. Sound familiar?

[Angrboda]

What in this case counts as punishing someone? Does withholding a like from their twitter post constitute punishing them? Does criticizing their ideas count as punishing them? Does calling them names constitute punishing them? Or is it only punishment by an authority that you're concerned with, i.e. taking away someone's rights? And does it matter whether or not they deserve said punishment?

It seems that there's a vast gray area here where some things are ethical, some things may not be ethical, and some things have no ethical significance at all. Someone called Bel a self-righteous tool. Bel complained that it was a contentless insult and therefore a form of punishment (ignoring the fact that it isn't contentless because Bel is in fact a self-righteous tool). That seems to be one of the gray areas. For some questions, that amount of opprobrium is not morally significant and so is an ethically defensible response to religion. If I were to deny religious people their freedom or right to own property, then that wouldn't necessarily be ethically defensible.

So unless and until Ahriman defines what he means by punishment, a lot of the significance of various answers will be unclear. This becomes fertile ground for equivocation.

[Ahriman]

What in this case counts as punishing someone?  Does withholding a like from their twitter post constitute punishing them?  Does criticizing their ideas count as punishing them?  Does calling them names constitute punishing them?  Or is it only punishment by an authority that you're concerned with, i.e. taking away someone's rights?  And does it matter whether or not they deserve said punishment?

It seems that there's a vast gray area here where some things are ethical, some things may not be ethical, and some things have no ethical significance at all.  Someone called Bel a self-righteous tool.  Bel complained that it was a contentless insult and therefore a form of punishment (ignoring the fact that it isn't contentless because Bel is in fact a self-righteous tool).  That seems to be one of the gray areas.  For some questions, that amount of opprobrium is not morally significant and so is an ethically defensible response to religion.  If I were to deny religious people their freedom or right to own property, then that wouldn't necessarily be ethically defensible.

So unless and until Ahriman defines what he means by punishment, a lot of the significance of various answers will be unclear.  This becomes fertile ground for equivocation.

Yes, it means (bold) as well as physical punishment and torture.

[Mister Agenda]

Yeah that's not child abuse.

I agree with you.

I think it's a very foolish thing to say.

Maybe you could start a thread about the foolish things some atheists and theists say on the internet.

[The Grand Nudger]

More like foolish things theists say atheists say..on the internet.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

What in this case counts as punishing someone?  Does withholding a like from their twitter post constitute punishing them?  Does criticizing their ideas count as punishing them?  Does calling them names constitute punishing them?  Or is it only punishment by an authority that you're concerned with, i.e. taking away someone's rights?  And does it matter whether or not they deserve said punishment?

It seems that there's a vast gray area here where some things are ethical, some things may not be ethical, and some things have no ethical significance at all.  Someone called Bel a self-righteous tool.  Bel complained that it was a contentless insult and therefore a form of punishment (ignoring the fact that it isn't contentless because Bel is in fact a self-righteous tool).  That seems to be one of the gray areas.  For some questions, that amount of opprobrium is not morally significant and so is an ethically defensible response to religion.  If I were to deny religious people their freedom or right to own property, then that wouldn't necessarily be ethically defensible.

So unless and until Ahriman defines what he means by punishment, a lot of the significance of various answers will be unclear.  This becomes fertile ground for equivocation.

Yes, it means (bold) as well as physical punishment and torture.

Isn’t there a bridge you should be under?

Boru

[arewethereyet]

What in this case counts as punishing someone?  Does withholding a like from their twitter post constitute punishing them?  Does criticizing their ideas count as punishing them?  Does calling them names constitute punishing them?  Or is it only punishment by an authority that you're concerned with, i.e. taking away someone's rights?  And does it matter whether or not they deserve said punishment?

It seems that there's a vast gray area here where some things are ethical, some things may not be ethical, and some things have no ethical significance at all.  Someone called Bel a self-righteous tool.  Bel complained that it was a contentless insult and therefore a form of punishment (ignoring the fact that it isn't contentless because Bel is in fact a self-righteous tool).  That seems to be one of the gray areas.  For some questions, that amount of opprobrium is not morally significant and so is an ethically defensible response to religion.  If I were to deny religious people their freedom or right to own property, then that wouldn't necessarily be ethically defensible.

So unless and until Ahriman defines what he means by punishment, a lot of the significance of various answers will be unclear.  This becomes fertile ground for equivocation.

Yes, it means (bold) as well as physical punishment and torture.

You are a twit.