Calilasseia wrote:

Nebogipfel wrote:

Mick wrote:
You tell me. I presume you think it is true that gay rights are human rights, Amiright? Those reasons will be contested; and so we call them contentious, especially since many, many people do not agree.

From this, you can perhaps begin to see why some people are kinda scared of theism, or at least the more honest and consistent sort.

And not just gay people either. Because with this sort of attitude prevailing amongst certain brands of supernaturalism, one can never tell when one might suddenly fall foul of apologetics placing one within the asserted class of "undesirables" to be expunged.

Hate the apostasy, love the apostate. Something like that. Apostasy is just one more disordered behaviour.



I'm not really laughing. Mick's trying to fool us into thinking he believes the gun's not loaded as he twirls it on his index finger.

Hey, Rocky! Watch me pull a rabbit outta my hat! Ooops! Wrong hat!

Cito di Pense wrote:Hate the apostasy, love the apostate. Something like that. Apostasy is just one more disordered behaviour.

Of course, a lot of supernaturalists would love to have refusal to treat unsupported assertions regarded as a cognitive deficit, and frequently erect duplicitous apologetics aimed at this very end. We all saw how well that approach worked with gay people.

Cito di Pense wrote:I'm not really laughing. Mick's trying to fool us into thinking he believes the gun's not loaded as he twirls it on his index finger.

Actually, I would characterise his apologetics, more as an attempt to try and fool us into thinking, that the stake he's seeking to erect to burn us on, is actually some sort of fantastic new cognitive aid, facilitating direct empirical observation of his magic man.

Calilasseia wrote:Actually, I would characterise his apologetics, more as an attempt to try and fool us into thinking, that the stake he's seeking to erect to burn us on, is actually some sort of fantastic new cognitive aid, facilitating direct empirical observation of his magic man.

I doubt that.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Mick wrote:The major issue I have here is with constitutional supremacy.

Yes, and your technical quibbles are a pretext for not discussing conflict with doctrinal supremacy. This is eventually the way all woo-based social argument falls apart, because, well, one foundational document is pretty much as good as another, unless it isn't.

Mick seeks to win arguments for the greater glory of God, you know, the way Kalamity Kraig does, but less famously.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:Actually, I would characterise his apologetics, more as an attempt to try and fool us into thinking, that the stake he's seeking to erect to burn us on, is actually some sort of fantastic new cognitive aid, facilitating direct empirical observation of his magic man.

I doubt that.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Mick wrote:The major issue I have here is with constitutional supremacy.

Yes, and your technical quibbles are a pretext for not discussing conflict with doctrinal supremacy. This is eventually the way all woo-based social argument falls apart, because, well, one foundational document is pretty much as good as another, unless it isn't.

Mick seeks to win arguments for the greater glory of God, you know, the way Kalamity Kraig does, but less famously.

Also less eloquently.