Comments on: Contra Mundum: “Bigoted Fundamentalist” as Orwellian Double-Speak

By: Contra Mundum: When Scientists Make Bad Ethicists

Contra Mundum: When Scientists Make Bad Ethicists — Mon, 10 Oct 2011 07:58:53 +0000

[...] Mundum: What’s Wrong with Imposing your Beliefs onto Others? Contra Mundum: God, Proof and Faith Contra Mundum: “Bigoted Fundamentalist” as Orwellian Double-Speak Contra Mundum: The Flat-Earth Myth Contra Mundum: Confessions of an Anti-Choice Fanatic Contra [...]

By: Contra Mundum: Separating Church and State

Contra Mundum: Separating Church and State — Fri, 02 Sep 2011 01:50:12 +0000

By: Matt

Matt — Wed, 08 Jun 2011 04:17:47 +0000

Yes jeremy its odd how skeptics seem to have such confidence in their sources accuracy ( Hitchens) and are so certain of various moral claims objective truth that they will state anyone who disagrees is obviously evil and stupid. Where did that skeptical freethinking go……

By: Matt

Matt — Wed, 08 Jun 2011 04:16:00 +0000

Age of Reason, r
believe that any one who doesn’t accept their savior deserves to go to Hell to be tormented for eternity, is– in the words of Hitchens– a “WICKED AND DELUSIONAL IDIOT”, and deserved neither to be treated with respect, nor with civility.

First, who stated that people deserve to be tormented forever merely for rejecting Jesus. I don’t hold this position, nor does the bible, nor for that matter does orthodox Christianity.

Second, why does the fact Hitchens calls people names entail no one should treat those people with respect. This sounds like you embrace the premise: If X is denounced by Hitchens X is an evil person. Apparently skeptics hold to a Hitchens denunciation theory of meta-ethics now.

Moreover, do you actually have an argument that rejecting the saviour is not serious enough to warrant the punishment you mention. Perhaps you can elaborate the moral premises from which you deduce this conclusion, and explain why you are certain of moral premises like this and sceptical of theological ones.

there’s no point in arguing with such nut-case fundamentalists, insults and mockery is all they deserve

Sorry, but calling yourself age of reason, does not make up for abandoning reason and using ad hom fallacies. Try actually thinking for once, instead of behaving like the mirror image of what you accuse others of.

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Wed, 08 Jun 2011 00:05:29 +0000

“that’s because the religious often deserve it:”

and who gets to decide, when you sink to that level you are basically saying you cant offer reason..

“people who believe that any one who doesn’t accept their savior deserves to go to Hell to be tormented for eternity”

not the Christian position at all, it may be Hitchen’s misrepresentation of the Christian position, but when Hitch gets upset about his own misrepresentation who actually cares? and what does it prove?

“WICKED” interesting, i wonder on what basis Hitch says something is wicked [morally bad], seems a somewhat contradictory idea coming from him

By: AgeOfReasonXXI

AgeOfReasonXXI — Tue, 07 Jun 2011 14:46:59 +0000

“They often argue that those of us that are religious do not even deserve to be treated with civility! ”

that’s because the religious often deserve it:

people who believe that any one who doesn’t accept their savior deserves to go to Hell to be tormented for eternity, is– in the words of Hitchens– a “WICKED AND DELUSIONAL IDIOT”, and deserved neither to be treated with respect, nor with civility.

there’s no point in arguing with such nut-case fundamentalists, insults and mockery is all they deserve

By: Anon

Anon — Tue, 01 Mar 2011 11:27:45 +0000

“What derives from the science of evolution can provide all the grounds you need”

As if you keep saying that, that it becomes true. Science of evolution can not provide any ground for morality … for a start.

By: Jim

Jim — Tue, 01 Mar 2011 09:51:03 +0000

I’ve been to many secular liberal websites and read the commentary. They often argue that those of us that are religious do not even deserve to be treated with civility! I think it’s worse than most people realize. These “progressive” people are consciously engaging in verbal brown-shirt tactics, with no reservations and no remorse.

By: Ralph

Ralph — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 06:22:23 +0000

Want to see a rather unusual piece on Dispensationalism? Check out “Edward Irving is Unnerving” on Google. Ralph

By: notadothead

notadothead — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 08:02:46 +0000

When I see someone trot out the words “divine law” I
turn off.
I know that such a person probably has, at the roots of their
philosophy, some utterly unreasonable premises or
axioms.
The acts you describe can be argued against on simple
practical, reality based grounds. In my view this is the only reasonable way to oppose them.
What derives from the science of evolution can provide all the grounds you need…