The Battle Bar, Our Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy

Right, so like we're going to be reading the source material from various influential Jewish thinkers in response to many of the big concepts that I've kind of baited you with. Cohen, if nothing else, will be a really strong proponent for your version of ethics, law, and political theory. The class is about philosophers who are Jewish, not Jewish theology.

we wont be discussing religion except insofar as it gives these people a motivation for egalitarian (or not!) systems of politics.

Also, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMjo5f9eiX8 (God's Not Dead trailer)

Edit:

Originally posted by Nephthys
One could say the same for religion.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Then again I don't know many people that take university professors seriously because they do nothing but dabble in "theories".

One could say the same for religion.

Originally posted by Nephthys
One could say the same for religion.

That's true, but in judaism, they try to apply to every day life, to better one's self. It doesn't matter whether you do it because you believe in God or a god, or you do it for self improvement.

Lol.

Hey I'm just saying from what I've seen. I treat the hardcore orthodox guys like I treat the hardcore secularists. There IS a middle ground. Self improvement is one.

I bet Janus is just fuming at that pseudo religious propaganda.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Hey I'm just saying from what I've seen. I treat the hardcore orthodox guys like I treat the hardcore secularists. There IS a middle ground. Self improvement is one.

So a faith-based argument is valid if and only if it achieves a 'middle ground'?

Originally posted by psmith81992
I bet Janus is just fuming at that pseudo religious propaganda.

What are you talking about here?

What do you mean by argument? An argument only occurs if you're trying to prove your side right or my side wrong. You can't prove god doesn't exist any more than I can prove that he does. I was just stating my societal preference.

Originally posted by psmith81992
What do you mean by argument?

You made an assertion. Here, I'll show you it:

Originally posted by psmith81992
Hey I'm just saying from what I've seen. I treat the hardcore orthodox guys like I treat the hardcore secularists. There IS a middle ground. Self improvement is one.

You're saying the middle ground is the preferable stance in a situation between extreme fundamentalism and extreme "secularism" (which I can only assume means non-religious entirely). You didn't defend this assertion with anything but "it is the case, because mediation", and therefore I called attention to your fallacy.

An argument only occurs if you're trying to prove your side right or my side wrong.

There's several components of this discussion:

1. You make a claim.
2. You fail to back it up/elaborate.
3. I call you on it.
4. You defend it by saying it's somehow not an argument, as if that removes personal accountability.

I was just stating my societal preference.

But why? Why is a middle ground preferable to either alternative? Because "self-improvement"? That's so vague it doesn't even merit a strong case against.

You're saying the middle ground is the preferable stance in a situation between extreme fundamentalism and extreme "secularism" (which I can only assume means non-religious entirely). You didn't defend this assertion with anything but "it is the case, because mediation", and therefore I called attention to your fallacy.

I did not have to defend this claim. I stated what my personal preference was. But if I DO have to defend the claim, the middle ground for me is a belief in god with a healthy dose of skepticism, good enough?

But why? Why is a middle ground preferable to either alternative? Because "self-improvement"? That's so vague it doesn't even merit a strong case against.

Because being extremely religious to the point of fanaticism makes you close minded and closes you off from the rest of the world as a result. Being extremely non religious or secularist (or the ones I've met) makes you look like a douche when you say "there is no god", while believing in either nothing or mankind. Neither one alone is preferable. We can talk about which has done more good or more harm to society but I don't think that's an argument you want to get into.

Now you might say "I believe in logic", but believing in logic and reason while at the same time reconciling science and religion, are not mutually exclusive things.

Originally posted by psmith81992
I did not have to defend this claim. I stated what my personal preference was.

Correction: you clarified it as a personal preference after I called you out on it, and typically being a personal preference does not make it exclusive to being an assertion.

Learn2debatenoob.

But if I DO have to defend the claim, the middle ground for me is a belief in god with a healthy dose of skepticism, good enough?

No, not really. A belief in god with a healthy dose of skepticism seems contradictory.

Because being extremely religious to the point of fanaticism makes you close minded and closes you off from the rest of the world as a result.

Agreed.

Being extremely non religious or secularist (or the ones I've met) makes you look like a douche when you say "there is no god", while believing in either nothing or mankind.

Lol.

First, atheists or agnostics are not vacuums of morality. For example, I don't go out and murder prostitutes or torture puppies because I find it to be an evil act. I hate these acts and shun them because I recognize them as compromising basic empathy and compassion, because people and animals have innate worth, and because I want to be a good person, not because I am afraid of grandpa in the sky or super mystical forces which might judge me. I show moral courage in things I do in spite of not believing in any religion. So I take exception to the idea that those who don't believe at all in god are somehow nihilists of the lowest order. Furthermore, the idea that merely/only believing in 'mankind' is somehow reprehensible is laughable at best.

Second, 'look like a douche' is a pretty stupid reason, when being contradictory and unable to defend your positions is also douchey behavior, and I'm pretty sure Galileo was a douche when he told morons in his day that the earth revolved around the sun (Gasp!).

Religious dogma/doctrine is not compatible with both scientific and social progress/equality without serious sacrifice from one or both sides. Given that religion is a nest of unsupported assertions, it should naturally be the one to go.

Neither one alone is preferable.

Disagreed.

We can talk about which has done more good or more harm to society but I don't think that's an argument you want to get into.

On the contrary, I'm curious to see what you think you can prove. It's probably easier to find people killed or tortured over religious fanaticism and than it is to find people killed over secular concerns like math and sports teams and the color of their shirt.

Now you might say "I believe in logic", but believing in logic and reason while at the same time reconciling science and religion, are not mutually exclusive things.

Lol.

Yes, yes they are.

[list]Full Definition of LOGIC
1
a (1) : a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning (2) : a branch or variety of logic <modal logic> <Boolean logic> (3) : a branch of semiotics; especially : syntactics (4) : the formal principles of a branch of knowledge
b (1) : a particular mode of reasoning viewed as valid or faulty (2) : relevance, propriety
c : interrelation or sequence of facts or events when seen as inevitable or predictable
d : the arrangement of circuit elements (as in a computer) needed for computation; also : the circuits themselves
2
: something that forces a decision apart from or in opposition to reason <the logic of war> [/list]

Versus:

[list]Full Definition of FAITH
1
a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty
b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2
a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3
: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>
— on faith
: without question <took everything he said on faith> [/list]

No, not really. A belief in god with a healthy dose of skepticism seems contradictory.

Lol.

First, atheists or agnostics are not vacuums of morality. For example, I don't go out and murder prostitutes or torture puppies because I find it to be an evil act. I hate these acts and shun them because I recognize them as compromising basic empathy and compassion, because people and animals have innate worth, and because I want to be a good person, not because I am afraid of grandpa in the sky or super mystical forces which might judge me. I show moral courage in things I do in spite of not believing in any religion. So I take exception to the idea that those who don't believe at all in god are somehow nihilists of the lowest order. Furthermore, the idea that merely/only believing in 'mankind' is somehow reprehensible is laughable at best.

Second, 'look like a douche' is a pretty stupid reason, when being contradictory and unable to defend your positions is also douchey behavior, and I'm pretty sure Galileo was a douche when he told morons in his day that the earth revolved around the sun (Gasp!).

Religious dogma/doctrine is not compatible with both scientific and social progress/equality without serious sacrifice from one or both sides. Given that religion is a nest of unsupported assertions, it should naturally be the one to go.

Also, I'm not sure why you're comparing logic and faith, especially because those who are religious, 'know' god exists.

If God's creation is another way of saying "big bang", so be it. But just like on our Bush vs. Obama debates, I've shown a little less bias than you. I'm pro religion pro centrism, you're pretty much anti religion.

But again, I believe in something higher than myself while you have the arrogance to say "i'm it".

Originally posted by psmith81992
Do tell.

Because a healthy dose of skepticism would require that you re-examine doctrine for validity and soundness.

So you're taking religious extremists on one side, and normal non religious people on the other, when the discussion is both extremes. Again, your bias is showing.

No, not it's not. Secularism isn't a single unified body of similar beliefs; extremist religious fundamentalists are. I can be hardcore atheist and still bake cakes for kids, volunteer for the Red Cross, and protest against abortion or the death penalty. Since the moral framework is diverse for 'extreme secularists', this comparison doesn't hold water.

I don't do things because of a mystical being(lol at your casual jabs),

So is Christian or Jewish morality based on the premise that things are bad regardless of God's wrath? Because lol if you say yes.

I do things because I want to be a good person and ALSO because I believe in something higher than myself.

Why do you need something higher than yourself which is an unprovable mystical being? Why can't a higher cause be the collective good of others? Even the good minorities that exist in certain places, the downtrodden, or the innocent children?

There's plenty of good causes that aren't based on centuries-old Middle-eastern mythology.

And it's not so much believing in a god, but laughing at those who believe in a god, but then only believing in mankind. THAT is laughable.

How so?

It looks like you're searching for contradictions when there aren't any.

No, you're just being dense.

You seem to have a difficult time with this subject, just like you did when I explained my stance on homosexuality and how I believed one thing on a personal level, but on a societal level, a totally different thing.

No, I understand you clearly. I even pointed out that you said, many times at RoK, how homosexuality was wrong from a religious perspective and from that angle you agreed with [them/religious people making this claim]. Then you fell all over yourself claiming to not be religious and that religious 'logic' was just blind faith, but then saying that you believed in religious logic and come from a family influenced by religious mores.

It was a travesty of contradictions and semantics which would make Socrates cry blood.

That also wasn't contradictory when you tried your hardest to make it so.

Yes, yes it was. Your inability to admit to fault is not a fault of mine.

Of course they're compatible. I suggest you listen to some lectures from Gerald Shroeder who reconciles science and religion.

You mean an Orthodox Jewish apologist?

Why should I go 'listen to some lectures' from someone else to understand your assertions?

Don't you understand it enough to use your own words?

Again, I know you WANT them to not be two different explanations because that might just mean that religion or a god DOES have some merit, and that would piss you off, but simply stating they're contradictory doesn't make it so.

I used legit definitions. It's axiomatic. Saying I'm wrong doesn't make it so, especially given that I am using conventionally recognized meanings behind the words in question.

Also, I'm not sure why you're comparing logic and faith, especially because those who are religious, 'know' god exists.

In the same way young children 'know' the Easter Bunny exists, or Vikings 'know' Odin exists.

This isn't knowledge, because knowledge requires not only awareness that X is so, but proof that X is so. "Old scripture/someone who tries to reconcile old scripture with defined science sez so" is not proof.

If God's creation is another way of saying "big bang", so be it.

No, that's misleading. BBT is a working theory based on all available evidence, and is subject to change based on future data. It is not claimed to be absolute or dogmatic.

Conversely, the creation theory is dogmatic and unable to be empirically verified.

They are not the same.

But just like on our Bush vs. Obama debates, I've shown a little less bias than you.

No, not really. I didn't even vote Obama, and I've said that Obamacare is shit. I also didn't care for his Trayvon Martin pandering, but I understand he needs votes. Benghazi and the Fort Hood shooting aftermath are other ways he has failed.

You completely refused to see Bush as bad in any way, half-way apologizing for any perceived problems and then lumping vitriol on Obama that comes straight from far-right media. You also outright lied to me about your comparison claim between Bush and Obama and their economic acumen.

I'm pro religion pro centrism, you're pretty much anti religion.

You have a lot of unexamined beliefs that guide your life, unsurprisingly.

But again, I believe in something higher than myself without proof and let it guide my world-view while you have the common sense to say there's nothing conclusive to base my life around with mere faith-based assertions from shepherds thousands of years ago.

^ Fixed for you.

Because a healthy dose of skepticism would require that you re-examine doctrine for validity and soundness.

No, not it's not. Secularism isn't a single unified body of similar beliefs; extremist religious fundamentalists are. I can be hardcore atheist and still bake cakes for kids, volunteer for the Red Cross, and protest against abortion or the death penalty. Since the moral framework is diverse for 'extreme secularists', this comparison doesn't hold water.

Why do you need something higher than yourself which is an unprovable mystical being? Why can't a higher cause be the collective good of others? Even the good minorities that exist in certain places, the downtrodden, or the innocent children?

There's plenty of good causes that aren't based on centuries-old Middle-eastern mythology.

And you constantly misuse the word "need". I don't "need" anything. To me it makes sense when I learn judaism or if I choose to believe in a higher being. That's why I'm semi religious. To you it doesn't make sense. That's why you aren't.

No, I understand you clearly. I even pointed out that you said, many times at RoK, how homosexuality was wrong from a religious perspective and from that angle you agreed with [them/religious people making this claim]. Then you fell all over yourself claiming to not be religious and that religious 'logic' was just blind faith, but then saying that you believed in religious logic and come from a family influenced by religious mores.

It was a travesty of contradictions and semantics which would make Socrates cry blood.

Yes, yes it was. Your inability to admit to fault is not a fault of mine.

So is Christian or Jewish morality based on the premise that things are bad regardless of God's wrath? Because lol if you say yes.

You mean an Orthodox Jewish apologist?

Why should I go 'listen to some lectures' from someone else to understand your assertions?

Don't you understand it enough to use your own words?

I used legit definitions. It's axiomatic. Saying I'm wrong doesn't make it so, especially given that I am using conventionally recognized meanings behind the words in question.

This isn't knowledge, because knowledge requires not only awareness that X is so, but proof that X is so. "Old scripture/someone who tries to reconcile old scripture with defined science sez so" is not proof.

For me, enough evidence comes from the fact that the Jews survived 400+ years in Egyptian slavery, systematic extermination over the centuries ending with the Holocaust, and still being here with a Jewish state. That may not be enough for you, but it is for me to stop and say, "this is more than just blind luck".

You completely refused to see Bush as bad in any way, half-way apologizing for any perceived problems and then lumping vitriol on Obama that comes straight from far-right media. You also outright lied to me about your comparison claim between Bush and Obama and their economic acumen.

You have a lot of unexamined beliefs that guide your life, unsurprisingly.

But again, I believe in something higher than myself without 100% proof and let it guide my world-view while you have the common sense to say there's nothing conclusive to base my life around with mere logic and faith-based assertions from shepherds thousands of years ago. Instead, you are incredibly insecure and think of yourself as a special sunflower, so you want to believe that you are the master of my own domain and that mankind is genuinely good, and if mankind is genuinely good, then evil does not exist and/is a product of sociological constructs.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Not re-examine necessarily but question what you learn.

So how is being spoonfed myths learning?

Actually the other side to religious extremism is secularist extremism such as communism, nazism, oppression and extermination of the religious.

Uh wut? Of those mentioned, communism is the only thing remotely atheistic, and their pogroms are a direct result of unethical behavior stemming from megalomania; not simply an 'absence of God'. Nazis were Christians. Learn history, noob.

Again, look no further than Mao and Stalin, who have accounted for exponentially more deaths than the Crusades or the Inquisition.

According to the estimates, between 3 and 60 million died. It's really vague to say 'exponentially' but I understand your intent with regards to scale.

I'm not denying that they were horrible, horrible men, but I do deny that they are characteristic of an areligious society. Religion is waning in great numbers in Nordic countries, yet they lead the world in citizen happiness, economic prosperity, and social programs. It's not a hellhole of lawless atheists emulating atrocities specific to Lenin-Stalin-Mao style communism.

It's amusing how you keep calling it mythology without actually proving it, while calling me out on my apparent inability to prove my assertions. Hypocrite?

[list]my·thol·o·gy
m&#601;&#712;THäl&#601;j&#275;/Submit
noun
noun: mythology; plural noun: mythologies
1.
a collection of myths, esp. one belonging to a particular religious or cultural tradition.
"Ganesa was the god of wisdom and success in Hindu mythology"
synonyms: myth(s), legend(s), folklore, folk tales, folk stories, lore, tradition More
a set of stories or beliefs about a particular person, institution, or situation, esp. when exaggerated or fictitious.
"in popular mythology, truckers are kings of the road"
2.
the study of myths.[/list]

And:

[list]myth
miTH/Submit
noun
noun: myth; plural noun: myths
1.
a traditional story, esp. one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.
synonyms: folk tale, folk story, legend, tale, story, fable, saga, mythos, lore, folklore, mythology More
traditional stories or legends collectively.
"the heroes of Greek myth"
2.
a widely held but false belief or idea.
"he wants to dispel the myth that sea kayaking is too risky or too strenuous"
a misrepresentation of the truth.
"attacking the party's irresponsible myths about privatization"
a fictitious or imaginary person or thing.
an exaggerated or idealized conception of a person or thing.
"the book is a scholarly study of the Churchill myth"
synonyms: misconception, fallacy, false notion, old wives' tale, fairy tale/story, fiction; More[/list]

Definitions are useful.

And you constantly misuse the word "need". I don't "need" anything. To me it makes sense when I learn judaism or if I choose to believe in a higher being. That's why I'm semi religious. To you it doesn't make sense. That's why you aren't.

I am because I am; you aren't because you aren't.

Actually the debate was on here if I recall and how I frequently stated that while I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, I live on a planet with 6 billion other people who may not share my belief, so I neither oppose nor support same sex marriage. Your response was just 'contradiction!".

Nope. I confronted you with your own words, and was able to make a considerable contradiction simply by doing so, without adding any real words of my own.

Hint: Walks like a duck.

Constantly repeating it doesn't make it so.

I know, I told you as much.

I'm convinced you make stuff up to justify your own beliefs, or use sweeping generalizations that you accuse me of.

It's really simple: morality in Abrahamic religions is basically "What God says is good is good". There is no reference outside of this. Things like slavery, rape, and child abuse are legal in the Old Testament, while things like eating pork, wearing cloth of two different fabrics, or shaving your hair at the temples is verbotten.

But by pretending not to understand the concern and refocusing on me, you win e-points.

No, I can't articulate what I understand into text. Even economics, which I am a master of, I can't properly explain.

Then it seems to me you aren't a master of the latter, and you don't have adequate knowledge of the former. If someone says "I believe in something but I can't explain it at all", I'd entertain a healthy dose of skepticism.

And it's not so much about assertions, it's about the fact that someone explains it much better than I ever could.

But you can't in the least articulate why they convinced you? We encountered this same problem before when you cited Jewish scholars as viable sources of reason.

Or you could just quit being so close minded and traverse outside of your beliefs for a brief period?

That's clearly the answer. The problem isn't the questions I'm asking which you are failing to answer or your own inconsistencies, but it is instead me and my closed mind.

You have yet to explain how the two contradict one another. I'm saying they do not have to, you're saying they do.

Did you read the definitions?

No it doesn't. You're talking about proof in the scientific sense. Such does not exist in religion nor is it required to. Religious proof exists from life events. Out of body experiences during surgery, certain things an individual beliefs is more than mere coincidence. I am not trying to convince you of God's existence so I don't have to prove to you that he exists. You may be trying to convince me that there is no god, so that's something you may have to prove.

Scientific proof is based on logic, which is the go-to for all rational discourse and search of knowledge. Faith-based assertions, tales, and traditions are exclusive to that domain.

For me, enough evidence comes from the fact that the Jews survived 400+ years in Egyptian slavery, systematic extermination over the centuries ending with the Holocaust, and still being here with a Jewish state. That may not be enough for you, but it is for me to stop and say, "this is more than just blind luck".

And the concept of proto-Olmecs floating across the Atlantic on reed craft and founding a great empire, only to fade out mysteriously before Europeans conquered could be construed as "more than luck", if "more than luck" is code-word for "I don't believe in coincidences, even though an untold number of variables are interacting across reality at all times".

I've repeatedly said Bush was a moron, whereas you defend Obama for his good decisions, blame Bush for Obama's bad decisions, and basically parrot MSNBC.

No.

And lol@lie, why don't you go back and read "did I seriously say that"? Don't make me spell out the definition of "lie" to you.

I quoted you directly bro. Don't squirm.

No no, my beliefs are pretty examined, that is why I'm satisfied with my lot in life and satisfaction breeds confidence and success.

Just insecure around gays, non-traditional masculine males, anything that appears weak or liberal, Democrats, and people who ask you for answers to your proofs by assertion.

fixed again

So how is being spoonfed myths learning?

Uh wut? Of those mentioned, communism is the only thing remotely atheistic, and their pogroms are a direct result of unethical behavior stemming from megalomania; not simply an 'absence of God'. Nazis were Christians. Learn history, noob.

According to the estimates, between 3 and 60 million died. It's really vague to say 'exponentially' but I understand your intent with regards to scale.

It's not a hellhole of lawless atheists emulating atrocities specific to Lenin-Stalin-Mao style communism.

synonyms: misconception, fallacy, false notion, old wives' tale, fairy tale/story, fiction; More

re·li·gion [ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA
noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4.
the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5.
the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

I am because I am; you aren't because you aren't.

Nope. I confronted you with your own words, and was able to make a considerable contradiction simply by doing so, without adding any real words of my own.

Hint: Walks like a duck.

I know, I told you as much.

It's really simple: morality in Abrahamic religions is basically "What God says is good is good". There is no reference outside of this. Things like slavery, rape, and child abuse are legal in the Old Testament, while things like eating pork, wearing cloth of two different fabrics, or shaving your hair at the temples is verbotten.

But by pretending not to understand the concern and refocusing on me, you win e-points.

Then it seems to me you aren't a master of the latter, and you don't have adequate knowledge of the former. If someone says "I believe in something but I can't explain it at all", I'd entertain a healthy dose of skepticism.

That's clearly the answer. The problem isn't the questions I'm asking which you are failing to answer or your own inconsistencies, but it is instead me and my closed mind.

Scientific proof is based on logic, which is the go-to for all rational discourse and search of knowledge. Faith-based assertions, tales, and traditions are exclusive to that domain.

And the concept of proto-Olmecs floating across the Atlantic on reed craft and founding a great empire, only to fade out mysteriously before Europeans conquered could be construed as "more than luck", if "more than luck" is code-word for "I don't believe in coincidences, even though an untold number of variables are interacting across reality at all times".

No.

I quoted you directly bro. Don't squirm.

Just insecure around gays, non-traditional masculine males, anything that appears weak or liberal, Democrats, and people who ask you for answers to your proofs by assertion.

I'd just like to take the opportunity to point out that you are usually confronted by the "typical liberal rhetoric" when you discus things with me, DS. And, notably, for almost anything along the typical Republican/Democrat axis that we've presented our positions on, I haven't gotten a response from you.

I'm definitely still waiting for a response to my post about why gay people (especially athletes) coming out is important, and that was completely orthodox "liberal rhetoric."

You bailed out on attempting a response to my critique of Schroeder's Big Bang Cosmology, which wasn't much more sophisticated than the traditional "secularist" rhetoric.

And to be honest, I'm ok with that. I'd really like to believe that you're at least thinking about the things I say even if you don't agree. But let's not pretend that liberal rhetoric is this flimsy house of cards that you can dismantle at a whim. You certainly haven't seemed to take the opportunity when offered it in the past.

(No disrespect. I mean, I'd say we're friends but if you want to say that you can disprove/dismiss 51% of the country and 80% of academia then I'm gonna have to call B.S.)

You guys are stupid.

When is the last time I dismissed anything you said? Also where are you getting your percentages? I have not read the article yet I will get it today. If anything I've respected your opinion because while it differs from mine, it lacks bias. I also don't recall the Schroeder thing you'd need to remind me.

Originally posted by psmith81992
How are the baseless assertions coming along?

You tell me bro.

Nazism was only mentioned because of it's lack of religious significance(Hitler's views weren't supported by Christianity in any sense, as opposed to the Crusades who tried to fall on religious texts).

Yet many Nazis were Christians and they advocated Christian means, even perpetuating a Christian agenda against the Jews. They also delved in occultist BS because they were generally ****ed up.

But the point is that they are not typical for an areligious government body of people, which was your intent in bringing them up.

And I love how you instantly attribute something to religion(kind of like you do blaming Bush, but are less quick to draw similar distinctions against what you are arguing. You can screaming "well it wasn't directly THAT" until you're blue in the face, but all you have to say is "communism", and that trumps anything religion has ever done.

Except that 'communism' is not the only secular form of government. You're stance implies that without god in their life, humans will devolve into jackbooted communists, because slippery slope.

I know, you had trouble understanding numbers last time as well, but taking estimates from Russia under Stalin's rule (20 million give or take), and Mao (40-60 million), the low end of that number is exponentially greater than the highest numbers from the Crusades and Inquisition.

See above. Communism != All forms of secular government.

If you want to cherry pick, then Aztecs killed millions in religious human sacrifices. OMG I WIN DA DEBATEZ.

Let me try something: UR BIAZ IS SHOWING HURR /loldavetechnique.

Yes, I get it. When it comes to religion, there's no distinctions for you it's just religion.

Religion = faith-based institution which codifies rules for living and is responsible for all sorts of fundamental goodness like homophobia, gender inequality, and burning people who are different from you.

Distinctions are irrelevant When it comes to the other side of the spectrum, specifically Stalinism/Maoism which were prevalent in religious oppression, you try very hard to make distinctions.

Stalinism and Maoism took a hardline against religion because religion was a threat to their total control, not because again, an absence of religion makes communism. And you accuse me of bias.

Funny how I don't see "myths" there🙂

Just ignore that both definitions I provided verify my position, and furthermore obfuscate the point.

You aren't religious because it doesn't make sense to you and I am because it does, is circular reasoning? LOL

Cuz you didn't justify or explain your believe or what "makes sense to you", LOL.

Maybe if you could articulate it, your reasoning might not be so circular.

Nope, you continuously screamed "contradiction" without proving one.
Hint: Repeating it doesn't make it a thing

LOLNOPE.

Yes, but you are notorious as far as hypocrisy and double standards are concerned.

Yes, if you completely ignore the other 99% aspects of Judaism because your goal is to APPEAR ignorant as long as you go to sleep with the "religion is bad" mindset, you're definitely right.

1. Again with the stupid % quotes. Didn't you learn last time?

2. This doesn't even make any sense.

No you wouldn't. You'd be skeptical if it is something you didn't agree with (like here). If you did, you would take it at face value.

So be skeptical unless it fits your bias? In that case, simply accept it?

LOL @ your healthy dose of skepticism, Dave.

It's a closed mind because your responses lack substance

No, they have substance. You're just too dense to realize it.

and don't prove what it is you're so desperate to prove.

K.

You're constantly making baseless assertions "religion is mythology/only about being god what god determines", then accusing me doing the same and not explaining myself.

1. Is religion faith-based?
2. If yes, then as we've seen per the definition I provided, which is conventionally used and appropriate, it cannot be logical.
3. If it is not logical, why should I recognize it as valid?
4. Your reasoning is that secular extremism is godless communism, that god is necessary, and that Judaism has these hidden truths which you can't even begin to relate despite your walls of text, but know for certain are there, for swearz.
5. You then call me out on shit you are actively doing and I am not.

Scientific proof isn't a requirement of religious debates. I can't scientifically prove to you god exists, just like you can't prove he doesn't. This simple fact seems to escape you.

Burden of proof. If you assert God exists, the onus of proof is on you. I don't have to prove absolutely that he doesn't exist, because I didn't make the assertion.

This is really simple. Why do you struggle with this?

I did not say I didn't believe in coincidences. What I said was certain things appear more than mere coincidences.

That's a human-centric and subjective POV. It's not criteria for "I believe in the holy books absolutely".

Your rebuttal? "No, its all luck and coincidences". Nice!

Which assertion requires more proof?

1. All this can't be luck; it must be directed by a higher power.

2. It is what it is; a random event which is favorable or fortunate.

This is pretty simple, but feel free to crowdsource.

Oh that's cute. Your pro liberal propaganda didn't work out so well for you that you can only muster up the response of "no". Kind of like you did in the same sex marriage debate. That is adorable.

It was simpler and easier to just negate all the nonsense. "PRO LIBERAL PROPAGANDAZ". I love the name-calling. Way to debate, bro.

That cat is adorable.

Try again bro. If you'd like, I can point out exactly where I asked if I legitimately said that, since you have selective amnesia.

Prove up or shut up.

As opposed to intellectually arrogant as a result of massive insecurities, most likely single, questionable career choices, financially laughable, while appearing hardcore anti conservative/republican/anything to do with believing in a higher being while believing in mankind? Yea, I'll take moderately religious for $500.

Must be hard typing in the closet, what with your elbows hitting the sides and all.