Have we reach peak LGBT nonsense?

antiskeptic

salmocab wrote: »

The answer to that is obviously no, people wouldn’t care beyond wondering why someone would make that connection. Equating Epstein to victims of a fire is surely stretching this though, people died in a fire and the fool tried to suggest it was because of something other people did, your example would have been because of things Epstein himself did.

As a side note: presumably the same people who object to gays supposedly attracting the wrath of God (all the while not believing there is a God to be wrathful) would nod in support of the idea that Epstein is subject the the wrath of the same unbelieved in God.

Taxi Driver: That Epstein fella deserved all he got

Passenger: yeah, reckon he's burning in Hell right now

Taxi Driver: Yeah. And too bloody good for him too.


I think Folaus idea is that because all of mankind is under condemnation, wrath can rain down on a nation (or some part of the nation) because of a nations choice. It'd be like wrath poured out on some because Ireland voted for abortion.

Any, to your point. Folk would be still making judgments about where and for what God's wrath ought to be poured out. A curious thing from unbelieverd. At least they accept there ought to be judgment, even if they and He differ on where the line should be drawn.

salmocab

antiskeptic wrote: »

As a side note: presumably the same people who object to gays supposedly attracting the wrath of God (all the while not believing there is a God to be wrathful) would nod in support of the idea that Epstein is subject the the wrath of the same unbelieved in God.

Taxi Driver: That Epstein fella deserved all he got

Passenger: yeah, reckon he's burning in Hell right now

Taxi Driver: Yeah. And too bloody good for him too.


I think Folaus idea is that because all of mankind is under condemnation, wrath can rain down on a nation (or some part of the nation) because of a nations choice. It'd be like wrath poured out on some because Ireland voted for abortion.

Any, to your point. Folk would be still making judgments about where and for what God's wrath ought to be poured out. A curious thing from unbelieverd. At least they accept there ought to be judgment, even if they and He differ on where the line should be drawn.

Your just deciding that what people are objecting to is where gods wrath is directed but most people believers and non believers I would think have issue with someone claiming that people are dying because of how other people voted on an issue.

Not really sure what you think an imagined conversation in a taxi has to do with it.

People believe there should be judgement just differ on who should be judging.

Cabaal

antiskeptic wrote: »

Folk would be still making judgments about where and for what God's wrath ought to be poured out..

You've still not answered my question,

Which god are you talking about?
There are so many so you'll need to be far more specific, using the term "god" is far too general.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

The implication of what I said was that people where picky and choosy when it comes to when and where God's wrath (a wrath they don't actually believe in) might be considered appropriate to apply.


I had nothing to say the matter of God's wrath and how it might or might not express in practice. And so I have nothing to say on a matter not implicated by my post.

You specifically didn't criticise Folaus interpretation of the bushfire deaths, you criticised his critics. Therefore, we can only take it that you agree with him, hence I am asking you the implications of his claims about the deaths (as I don't have access to him). This isn't an answer, so would you like to try again?

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

Any, to your point. Folk would be still making judgments about where and for what God's wrath ought to be poured out. A curious thing from unbelieverd. At least they accept there ought to be judgment, even if they and He differ on where the line should be drawn.

Not curious at all. You seem to be under the impression that someone should not critically examine belief claims they don't already hold. Kind of like saying a mechanic shouldn't check a cars brakes without first going on the motorway with them (a great place to discover they don't work).
So, know that you realise how daft this is, do you want to backtrack and pretend you were not saying it?

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You specifically didn't criticise Folaus interpretation of the bushfire deaths, you criticised his critics. Therefore, we can only take it that you agree with him, hence I am asking you the implications of his claims about the deaths (as I don't have access to him). This isn't an answer, so would you like to try again?

The world is awash with dipstick Christians firing off at the mouth. They get flak aplenty. I should know.

The interest is in the less blatantly obvious. That needn't and shouldn't be taken as an endorsement of Folau's view.

He is a generator of good discussion material. Even if blundering through like a .. er.. rugby player.


You are hasty in your presumptions. You, who presumably places much import on scientific method, should consider not so swiftly jumping to obvious-to-you conclusions. Bad scientific method that: letting your personal opinions bend your analysis.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

The world is awash with dipstick Christians firing off at the mouth.

That it is. Amazing how many dipstick Christians refer to other dipstick Christians as dipsticks, isn't it?

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

That it is. Amazing how many dipstick Christians refer to other dipstick Christians as dipsticks, isn't it?

For one whose system has trouble nailing down objectives (unless empirically demonstrable) I could see how you could be amazed.

For the rest of us, a mouthpiece is just that.

pauldla

antiskeptic wrote: »

For one whose system has trouble nailing down objectives (unless empirically demonstrable) I could see how you could be amazed.

For the rest of us, a mouthpiece is just that.

Didn't you once see a balloon in a tree as proof for the existence of god?

antiskeptic

pauldla wrote: »

Didn't you once see a balloon in a tree as proof for the existence of god?

Nope. Someone else did. Not so much proof as another (and not insignificant in the context) step in her emerging into faith.

You've a good memory! Not perfect. But good.

pauldla

antiskeptic wrote: »

Nope. Someone else did. Not so much proof as another (and not insignificant in the context) step in her emerging into faith.

You've a good memory! Not perfect. But good.

That's right, it was someone close to you, if I recall?

antiskeptic

pauldla wrote: »

That's right, it was someone close to you, if I recall?

Nope. Story my mam told me about a woman on the threshold of faith who she had rowed in alongside.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

The world is awash with dipstick Christians firing off at the mouth. They get flak aplenty. I should know.

The interest is in the less blatantly obvious. That needn't and shouldn't be taken as an endorsement of Folau's view.

He is a generator of good discussion material. Even if blundering through like a .. er.. rugby player.


You are hasty in your presumptions. You, who presumably places much import on scientific method, should consider not so swiftly jumping to obvious-to-you conclusions. Bad scientific method that: letting your personal opinions bend your analysis.

You did not start another thread on the general idea of who and how god punishes who he punishes. You did not say in this thread that you disagree with Folaus assessment, but also find it funny that his critics also assume that gods punishment must follow their own person moral ideals. You specifically contradicted Folaus critics, only them and not him, in this thread. So as a scientist, with the evidence in front of me, I am left with the only conclusion that you do agree with him.
You still haven't actually said you specifically disagree with him.

Cabaal

antiskeptic wrote: »

Nope. Someone else did. Not so much proof as another (and not insignificant in the context) step in her emerging into faith.

So a man made object helped them get into their religious faith?
o...k :rolleyes:

Thats like somebody in the forum commenting about how a mini disc player helped them realise that there is no god.

antiskeptic

Cabaal wrote: »

So a man made object helped them get into their religious faith?
o...k :rolleyes:

If Liberty Hall was lifted from it's moorings by "invisible hands", turned upside down and placed back down again, before your eyes.

Let's say it would help you get into faith.

What faith that would help get you into would probably depend on what went before. In the case of mysterious sightings in near space and reports of unusual events around the world it may be faith in aliens.

"Man made object" isn't really the focal point.

eagle eye

So this thread has become about religion now and not whether the LGBT are reaching too far.
Why can't everybody just live and let live? Why don't people just concern themselves with normal people and not whack jobs?
I suppose the stupid on social media need something to keep their minds occupied because they can't think for themselves.
I'm not religious but refuse to tag myself because there are a lot of idiots that call themselves atheist or agnostic. I don't hate religion though, there's good and bad things about it. I don't like people who push their beliefs on you by calling to your door, or those whether religious or not who look down on someone else.
Like Israel Folau is just a very religious man who uses the voice of the stupid that is social media and talks at a sermon in a small church. I don't agree with his views but what he says is not that important.
Its the idiots on social media who always desperately need something to give out about that are the problem.

eagle eye

antiskeptic wrote:

If Liberty Hall was lifted from it's moorings by "invisible hands", turned upside down and placed back down again, before your eyes.

Really? Liberty hall lifted up by invisible hands? You should start writing fantasy.

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You did not start another thread on the general idea of who and how god punishes who he punishes.

There is many many threads I did not start. Absence of evidence..

You did not say in this thread that you disagree with Folaus assessment,

Assessment of what? Sinners going to Hell. I agree with that. But not with Folau's take on that. Christians are sinners, doubtlessly some sinning according to the list Folau posted, and they aren't going to Hell.

I'm sure I said as much.

but also find it funny that his critics also assume that gods punishment must follow their own person moral ideals. You specifically contradicted Folaus critics, only them and not him, in this thread. So as a scientist, with the evidence in front of me, I am left with the only conclusion that you do agree with him.
You still haven't actually said you specifically disagree with him.

As pointed out in the above point, the headline can be simplistic. People engaging in homosexual acts going to hell is simplistic (given people engaging in homosexual acts will also be going to heaven)

Quite how God's wrath is poured out I'm not certain. It's not a subject I've delved much into. But based on how I do think his wrath is poured out, I don't think it involves him burning people to death in a bushfire.

smacl

eagle eye wrote: »

So this thread has become about religion now and not whether the LGBT are reaching too far.
Why can't everybody just live and let live? Why don't people just concern themselves with normal people and not whack jobs?
I suppose the stupid on social media need something to keep their minds occupied because they can't think for themselves.
I'm not religious but refuse to tag myself because of all the idiots that call themselves atheist or agnostic. I don't hate religion though, there's good and bad things about it. I don't like people who push their beliefs on you by calling to your door, or those whether religious or not who look down on someone else.
Like Israel Folau is just a very religious man who uses the voice of the stupid that is social media and talks at a sermon in a small church. I don't agree with his views but what he says is not that important.
Its the idiots on social media who always desperately need something to give out about that are the problem.

Mod warning: You are on a forum for atheists and agnostics. Please refrain from collectively referring to those who call themselves atheist or agnostic as idiots, or for that matter labeling any large and diverse group of people as idiots. Thanks for your attention.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

Quite how God's wrath is poured out I'm not certain. It's not a subject I've delved much into. But based on how I do think his wrath is poured out, I don't think it involves him burning people to death in a bushfire.

So why were you only criticising Folau's critics (and therefore defending him) if you also disagree with him for the same reason? Why did it take you so long to admit you disagree with him?
It really seems like you didn't disagree with him at first but realised you couldn't get out out of my questions. Added to that that your criticism of his critics (that they assume gods wrath would follow their own idea of punishment) equally applies to you, your earlier position of impartial superiority has now dissipated and you are now rowing back to avoid the embarrassment of a poorly thought out position.

eagle eye

smacl wrote:

Mod warning: You are on a forum for atheists and agnostics. Please refrain from collectively referring to those who call themselves atheist or agnostic as idiots, or for that matter labeling any large and diverse group of people as idiots. Thanks for your attention.

Apologies, I edited my post so it's not so general.

smacl

eagle eye wrote: »

Its the idiots on social media who always desperately need something to give out about that are the problem.

And yet here you are on a forum similar enough to social media giving out about something you find disagreeable. Pot, kettle?

eagle eye

I'm talking about Twitter and the likes, not a discussion board which this site once was.

smacl

eagle eye wrote: »

I'm talking about Twitter and the likes, not a discussion board which this site once was.

And if this is no longer a discussion board as you seem to be implying, what brings you here precisely and how is it different from someone have an anonymous rant on Twitter or the likes?

eagle eye

smacl wrote:

And if this is no longer a discussion board as you seem to be implying, what brings you here precisely and how is it different from someone have an anonymous rant on Twitter or the likes?

What has this got to do with the LGBT going overboard?

Cabaal

eagle eye wrote: »

What has this got to do with the LGBT going overboard?

Bringing back this thread on topic.
The thread is about the claim that LGBT has come overboard. But its also about the discussion of comments made by a certain ex rugby player who is somewhat of a religious zealot.

Why can't everybody just live and let live? Why don't people just concern themselves with normal people and not whack jobs?

People would be silly to ignore the ex rugby player and leave his comments be made without response and action.

He has called for gay people to go to burn in hell and more recently he claimed the bush fires were ""little taste of God's judgement".

Lets not forget for one second that four people have died and at least 300 homes have been destroyed or damaged by fires in NSW. Not to mention the countless animals that have been killed.

So he has essentially said that 4 people being murdered by god is god's judgement for accepting gay people. Thats inciding hatred against gay people.

These nut jobs can and do eventually harm people or at the very least incite harm so ignoring them can be dangerous.

If he said black people should burn in hell and that the bush fires was a little taste of God's judgement for accepting black people we wouldn't be having this discussion at all.

We would be all agreeing that he is the racist person he is, the fact that some people have excused such homophobic comments says a lot about them as people and they should take a long hard look in a mirror as they are sorry excuses for decent human beings.

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So why were you only criticising Folau's critics (and therefore defending him)

It's really hard to know where to start with this kind of thinking. Atheists generally have a good grasp of logic and evidence but this is really bad logic you've got going there.

The "therefore" doesn't follow..

I criticize Folau's critics not because I agree with Folau, but because I disagree with cramping free speech which I don't think is hate speech. A slightly larger issue than what Folau might say.

I'm sure I said I thought Folau was blunt, imprecise, and dodgy in his theology elsewhere.

But the criticism concerns the larger issue: LGBT gone mad.

And I stand by that split. Him the minnow for criticism vs. media/corporate/political environs in hock to aggressive LGBT agenda. Hence the focus not on minnows.

salmocab

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's really hard to know where to start with this kind of thinking. Atheists generally have a good grasp of logic and evidence but this is really bad logic you've got going there.

The "therefore" doesn't follow..

I criticize Folau's critics not because I agree with Folau, but because I disagree with cramping free speech which I don't think is hate speech. A slightly larger issue than what Folau might say.

I'm sure I said I thought Folau was blunt, imprecise, and dodgy in his theology elsewhere.

But the criticism concerns the larger issue: LGBT gone mad.

And I stand by that split. Him the minnow for criticism vs. media/corporate/political environs in hock to aggressive LGBT agenda. Hence the focus not on minnows.

Nobody cramped Folaus free speech he’s as free today to say and think what he wants as he was before this all started.

Bannasidhe

salmocab wrote: »

Nobody cramped Folaus free speech he’s as free today to say and think what he wants as he was before this all started.

And he is obviously free to continue as he has continued.

salmocab

Bannasidhe wrote: »

And he is obviously free to continue as he has continued.

Indeed he is. The free speech thing gets rolled out far too often.