May 21, 2011. The date of the Rapture.

...I hope you are simply referring to the few thousands following Howard Camping and not using them as a strawman to go after the other billion as that's a logical fallacy and not rational.

 

If we are referring to [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Believer"]The True Believer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame], then I would say that 'gullible' is the right word. Do you have another definition you prefer?

Which of the [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies"]List of fallacies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame] are you referencing?

 

Corwyn, let's make this simple and have an answer to the original question. No fogging.

And I already answered your question on type of logical fallacy - strawman.

 

Simple answer: I don't know who burritos was referring to.

But since you brought up the idea of original questions you have yet answer mine from earlier in the thread. I repeat it here for your convenience.
"I am curious where on the list of most atrocious institutions in the history of mankind, you would prefer to see any institution which many people look to for moral guidance?"

 

"A straw man is a component of an [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_argument"]argument[/ame] and is an [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_fallacy"]informal fallacy[/ame] based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position." -wikipedia

Here is the quote you claim is a strawman argument, yes?

"What would be the best adjective to describe true believers? Gullible?"

I don't see a single thing in there which represents an opponents position, to say nothing of a misrepresentation of one.

 

Then maybe you should let burritos answer it - that's what most people do.

 

I find it absurd that the Christian Church should be on a list that includes:

The Third Reich
The Cultural Revolution
Stalin's Regime
Pol Pot
The African Slave Trade​

Even if adjusted for a smaller world population, the regimes listed and more clearly killed more, even factoring in The Crusades, Thirty Year's War, Hundred Year's War. Up until a century or so ago, the civilian population was largely out of the crosshairs. And most of these atrocities occurred inside of 100, not 2000 years. In regards to many European sectarian wars, I question how religious some of them were...many have used religion for worldly gains.

___________________________________


Some of you are using this crazy Rapture prediction for religion-bashing in general and it's gone on at PC for at least five years. How many in that time have converted to secular humanism after all the deriding?

 

​

Don't you think the 3rd Reich would also find it absurd to be on that list? When you fight a war it is because you believe you are correct. If you look objectively you will see why. If you look as if you are still on the team, then you won't.

Religion does non-believing bashing all the time. Not only bashing but burning. Can't have it both ways. Hopefully one day this plague of delusion will be eradicated from the world and we can get on to solving the problems with reason.

 

It would be absurd NOT to include it on such a list. Your argument seems to rest on an assertion that there are relative degrees of mass murder and if the scale of mass murder fails to reach certain thresholds then it's exempt from being classified as mass murder.

The christian church meddling in Africa to frustrate contraceptives distribution, AIDS education and to encourage and support legal structures to punish and execute homosexuals constitutes mass murder continued right into the present day.

What's absurd is pretending such an odious and immoral institution is the paragon of virtue to which we should all aspire.

 

Listing the Third Reich is relevant - The Holocaust being the most obvious reason, but that was just the start - ask Dietrich Bonhoeffer Hitler's Persecution of the Christian Churches

True, but I have not seen that at PC, nor have I been doing it, yet a number of secular members really don't care.

The bashing I've seen over the years at PC have been from militant atheists dishing out the drivel they despise to be shoved at them. Given the amount of time and anger some have spent, I question they truly believe in no God, but are striking back....striking back at "nothing" - what sense does that make? (for the non-religious that have not been very involved in this - this is not about you.) My final observation is when myself, spiderman, or in the past WindStrings makes a post, the reply is ALWAYS confrontational, taking my thoughts or Scripture out of context - reading things out of thin air....what does that tell you about someone that is that determined to disagree? In the instance of Daniel vs Windstrings a few years ago, Daniel got personal - does being called an idiot soften your convictions? His emotions got carried away in his language and left because he does not recognize obscenities and perjoritives are not defined by dictionaries, but how they are commonly used (which is often shock value.) Do the best salesmen and PR hacks use insults to frame opinions to their advantage? I see them tout secular humanism as 100% rational, but when it comes to many of their arguments at FHOP they often are "throw anything and see if it sticks" - I'm at a loss to see anything rational.

The religion-bashing members like Daniel participated in...how is this promoting your viewpoint? What I have seen is if someone like myself converted, I'd me spending a significant amount of each day with all kinds of anger like it's been expressed at FHOP - I want to be like that?

Actually the past few months have been pretty good until Howard Camping's prediction came and gave an excuse to attack religion in general.

 

Chuck, both Windstrings and Daniel are long gone. If you really want the animosity to end, I respectfully suggest you just let it go.

 

I find it absurd that the 'the christian church' -- or religion in general -- and its members are spoken of as a monolithic entity in this context. It it as meaningful as past sweeping generalizations putting everyone of a given race / ethnicity / nationality / sex / orientation into a single group when complaining about the crimes or problems of specific individuals or small groups.

I was raised in a Christian faith, and rejected it for several reasons. But the rate of bigotry and intolerance among nonbelievers is not any lower.

 

To make that closure complete, I respectfully suggest those sympathetic with Daniel's viewpoint not take it to the extent he did - takes two to tango.

I've never gone to the extent Windstrings did - you have been around awhile to remember him. Believe me, I could get a lot more vocal on this an other topics and really stir up the pot, but to what end???

Again, the past few months had been pretty good until this thread.

If others are willing to let this cool off, so am I.

 

They are angry because they feel betrayed. Rather than admit the pain of this betrayal they lash out in anger. We all do it. Look at the betrayal of Ishmael to understand how strong this anger is and how long it lasts. Rather than give up and acknowledge the pain those who feel betrayed will keep the anger and let it consume them. Eventually hate is born from it and at that point little can be done.

Ironically, those whose anger and hate drive them to this display of vitriol are hardly aware that they display the very flaws and faults they abhor when they point them out in others.

Jesus words are best in this case especially to those who paint with a broad brush and think that Christianity has nothing of value to learn from . . . if anyone does not welcome or accept you shake the dust from your sandals as you leave their fate is in their own hands. [paraphrased]

Me? I think it's silly to go to war against something you don't understand. Who knows? You may find you've wasted time fighting nothing or worse a friend.

It's all a human thang, God Bless you all. :amen:

 

they should be mad


good old harold has $72,000,000+ in the bank

 

It's posts like this that cause atheists to push back. Reverse the subjects and objects and read it back. I suspect you won't like it.

Tom

 

I was making another point. That's what most people do.

You were the one who tried to make it directly related to your question to burritos.