Or are you also prepared to say all...

I'll also point out that I never once said they were indicative of all Christianity. I made it VERY clear that they were an extreme example of what Christianity CAN be, as a tool to display just how varied behavior and belief can be within Christianity as a whole.

Exactly. It's a cheap cop-out to try and disavow people like WBC and declare them non-Christians just to try and keep your concept of what a Christian is in check. They are lunatics, they are fringe, but they ARE CHRISTIANS.

Prez wrote on Jan 31, 2012, 21:24:

Bhruic wrote on Jan 31, 2012, 16:57:

However you want to rationalize your superiority complex is okay. It doesn't really change anything.

Really? That's what you come back with? Well, if you want to be tolerant of those who throw girls back into burning buildings because they tried to flee without a male "chaperone", those who stone women for being raped, those who throw acid into women's faces for daring to get an education, be my guest. If not respecting such bullshit means I have a "superiority complex", then I'm damn proud to have one.

Your argument descended to the ridiculous when you drew a moral equivalence between terrorist bombers and Christians following what the Bible teaches. I didn't fall for the obvious bait, so you try to take it further. It's still not working, so I wonder what goofy argument you'll pull out next. I'd almost think you were trolling if I didn't know it is just in your nature to be this condescending.

Bhruic wrote on Jan 31, 2012, 21:00:

Can't prove a negative? Oh you mean the lack of evidence, right? So You think this big thing we are in, that we call the universe, isn't evidence?

It's evidence that the universe exists. It's not evidence of some entity creating it.

You don't know that. THAT is my point. You seem to get this to a degree, but you still deny it. That's fine, but don't act like you've finally nailed the case, because you are far from that.

I haven't denied it at all. I don't know if there is or isn't a "god". I'm not going to believe there is one, however, unless someone can give good evidence for the existence of such a being.

Actually, fuck that last paragraph, here's a link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

The first line from that page:

Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.

Yes, I'm aware of the definition. That's why I used it correctly. Someone (like myself for example) can be an agnostic atheist. That would mean they don't know if there's a "god", but they don't believe there is one. Someone could be a gnostic atheist, and believe that they know for certain there is not a god. Someone could be a gnostic theist, and think there's certainly a god, or someone could be an agnostic theist, and not know for certain there's a god, but believe there is one regardless.

Claiming to be an agnostic doesn't remove you from the debate over atheism vs theism, it just means you aren't claiming certain knowledge. Do you believe there is a god? If so, you are a theist. Do you not believe there is a god? Then you're an atheist. It's belief that determines, not knowledge.

Bhruic wrote on Jan 31, 2012, 16:57:

However you want to rationalize your superiority complex is okay. It doesn't really change anything.

Really? That's what you come back with? Well, if you want to be tolerant of those who throw girls back into burning buildings because they tried to flee without a male "chaperone", those who stone women for being raped, those who throw acid into women's faces for daring to get an education, be my guest. If not respecting such bullshit means I have a "superiority complex", then I'm damn proud to have one.

Can't prove a negative? Oh you mean the lack of evidence, right? So You think this big thing we are in, that we call the universe, isn't evidence?

You don't know that. THAT is my point. You seem to get this to a degree, but you still deny it. That's fine, but don't act like you've finally nailed the case, because you are far from that.

Actually, fuck that last paragraph, here's a link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

The first line from that page:

Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.

Draugr wrote on Jan 31, 2012, 18:13:

Prez wrote on Jan 31, 2012, 12:57:

Remember, while many christian churches will tell you "Hate the sin, love the sinner", WBC and it's ilk are carrying around signs of "God Hates Fags", "God Hates Jews", "Got Hates Obama", "Thank God for Dead Soldiers", etc.

Right on cue, the the usual fall-back for Christian-bashers: Westboro Baptist Church. They are a fringe loon group of haters that no Christian would ever associate with, and to even categorize them as Christians is offensively ignorant. Saying that they or other loon groups like them are indicative of Christianity is exactly like saying that Jerry Sandusky and other gay child predators are indicative of all homosexuals. Utter nonsense.

When did it become fashionable to answer irrational intolerance and deliberate misrepresentation with more of the same? Everyone complains about it when Christians do it but that doesn't seem to stop them from doing the exact same thing back at them. It would seem to me it's far better to rise above such nonsense rather than lower oneself to that level by responding in kind.

Well, lots of Americans have been doing this very thing to Muslims for decades, so it's not surprising to see it happen with other religions. When 9/11 happened we(speaking for america) didn't say, 'Well, those weren't REAL Muslims,' we never made a distinction, we just call them extremist, but they are still Muslim.
Using this same reasoning, Organizations like the Westboro Baptist Church, the Hutaree, or people like Timothy McVeigh are just as truly christian as the people who committed attacks on 9/11 are truly Muslim. If we make the distinction for the likes of the Westboro Baptist Church, then we should stop considering Al-Qaeda a Muslim organization.
That doesn't stop some American's from painting all Muslims with the same brush though, and then getting upset when it happens to Christians. That it extends to other religions is only natural. I don't mean to imply you are one of the people guilty of this double standard, but this is a disconnect a lot of people tend to have.

These people do what they do in the name of their religion, which they get to decide, not others. I have no right to say you aren't Christian, just as I don't have the right to say you ARE christian; my input is irrelevant to your beliefs. The same reason some people blame Muslims for 9/11 is the same reason some people would still consider people like Timothy McVeigh Christian. It may be perverted to the point of you not considering them so (Just like there are Muslim who wouldn't consider members of Al-Qaeda to be Muslims,) but you can't stop them from acting in the name of their chosen god, and in turn tainting the 'brand.'

Bhruic wrote on Jan 31, 2012, 13:29:

Neither can explain or prove either of those things, and they know it, yet Atheists seem to think burden of proof is ONLY on the religious.

Well guess what? As an Agnostic, I am under no such burden. So when I say, "prove there is no god(s)" then the burden BECOMES yours. So prove it or SHUT THE FUCK UP ALREADY!

Burden of proof applies to anyone making a claim. If someone is claiming to know absolutely that there is no god, then yes, they'd need to prove it (which you can't, as you can't prove a negative).

However, most atheists make no such claim. The default state is the non-existence of something. For example, should you claim there is an invisible pink unicorn standing behind me, you'd need to prove it's really there. Without proof, I'd be justified in not believing that it exists.

The same applies to "god". There's insufficient evidence to suggest such a being exists, so I don't choose to believe in one.

Oh, and you really should look up the definitions of the words you are using - an agnostic is in opposition to a gnostic. One can be an agnostic atheist, or an agnostic theist. Saying "I'm an agnostic" doesn't affect your beliefs (or lack thereof) in any fashion.

Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.

Prez wrote on Jan 31, 2012, 12:57:

Remember, while many christian churches will tell you "Hate the sin, love the sinner", WBC and it's ilk are carrying around signs of "God Hates Fags", "God Hates Jews", "Got Hates Obama", "Thank God for Dead Soldiers", etc.

Right on cue, the the usual fall-back for Christian-bashers: Westboro Baptist Church. They are a fringe loon group of haters that no Christian would ever associate with, and to even categorize them as Christians is offensively ignorant. Saying that they or other loon groups like them are indicative of Christianity is exactly like saying that Jerry Sandusky and other gay child predators are indicative of all homosexuals. Utter nonsense.

When did it become fashionable to answer irrational intolerance and deliberate misrepresentation with more of the same? Everyone complains about it when Christians do it but that doesn't seem to stop them from doing the exact same thing back at them. It would seem to me it's far better to rise above such nonsense rather than lower oneself to that level by responding in kind.

However you want to rationalize your superiority complex is okay. It doesn't really change anything.

Irrational beliefs do not deserve tolerance or respect. Period.

Neither can explain or prove either of those things, and they know it, yet Atheists seem to think burden of proof is ONLY on the religious.

Well guess what? As an Agnostic, I am under no such burden. So when I say, "prove there is no god(s)" then the burden BECOMES yours. So prove it or SHUT THE FUCK UP ALREADY!

Suffice it to say that, in my mind, your post is indicative of the same kind of intolerance that everyone here, you included, bashes Christians for, which I find ironic.

Remember, while many christian churches will tell you "Hate the sin, love the sinner", WBC and it's ilk are carrying around signs of "God Hates Fags", "God Hates Jews", "Got Hates Obama", "Thank God for Dead Soldiers", etc.

Beamer wrote on Jan 31, 2012, 09:53:
You call me irrational, but disliking something for irrational reasons is hatred. Given the lack of rational reasons to oppose gay marriage, all that is left is hate and fear, which are mostly the same thing.

Prez wrote on Jan 30, 2012, 17:21:
I can tell you that hate is not something true Christians partake in.

Prez wrote on Jan 30, 2012, 18:02:
If I'm honest with myself, I can't come up with any good reason that gay people can't marry if they want to. I keep asking my wife about it, and I never really get a satisfactory answer.