Mr Troll: Anonyism. Thats what he's known for. See his posts since striky started replying him. . .
Sometimes i feel that he deliberately does it. I imagine him in a large sofa, beer in hand, telling himself: "lets take this guy on a merry go round argument"

^^^^^


I don die LWKMD

I'll pretend to be you for a few by mimicing the kind of response and the kind of challenge you're been making. Here we go.

striktlymi: Hello Anony,
WRONG!!!

If I make the claim that most humans have two legs, it would be rather unreasonable for someone to challenge this position because this argument is based on facts.

interesting

FACT: majority of humans are born with two legs...

how do you know this "fact" have you been present at all births?

FACT: some humans (who are less than the majority) lose one or both legs before or during adulthood...

How do you know that amputees are less than the majority? Do you know all the amputees in the world?

FACT: majority of humans have two legs...

Again how do you know? Have you seen all the human beings in the world? You are committing the fallacy of hasty generalization.

We can easily ascertain the above through deductive reasoning, hence there is absolutely no need for the census you talked about because every statement there is based on facts.

I wonder what deductive reasoning you used in the above. You only made three blanket claims with absolutely no proof.

Your argument on the other hand is not based on FACTS but your opinion. It is factual to say that some nairaland Atheists can argue in that way (with your new goal post) but it moves away from the realm of fact when you say that a majority of nairaland Atheists argue in like manner based solely on the video.

Your argument also was based on opinion. Writing FACT in all caps does not make it factual. If you had said that some people have two legs, it would be fact but when you say majority of people have two legs, you are only stating your opinion.

I quite agree with this. The demand is rather ridiculous and that is why we are asked to avoid making blanket comments which boils down to the fallacy of hasty generalization; because committing this fallacy invites ridiculous demands.

You too have made blanket comments and invited ridiculous demands.

WRONG still!!!

If your argument was: "Most internet (nairaland) Atheists you have come across argue in that way" then the above method of validating your claim would have been fair but that is not your claim...

Your argument is clear: "Most internet (nairaland) Atheists argue in like manner" and this line of argument places a heavier burden of proof.

Similarly, you are WRONG. If your argument was that "majority of the people you have come across had two legs" then the above method of validating your claim would have been fair but that isn't your claim,
Your argument is clear "majority of people have two legs" and that places a heavier burden of proof on you.

---

I hope I have been able to show you by mimicking you how your responses are unreasonable.

I am sorry if I accused you unfairly...that means I might have interpreted the following comment wrongly:

I never said you accused me wrongly. I meant by that comment that I don't think it is fair to accuse someone of what he hasn't said i.e. If a particular atheist has not expressed any views relating to the video neither of us is free to assume that he/she agrees with or disagrees with our video guy as it will amount to putting words in his/her mouth.

Um...unless you show me from your OP where you mentioned "swearing among other things" and exclude the way the guy was shouting, then I maintain that the goal post was shifted.

Again you are being unreasonable. Perhaps I should make myself clearer with a list. When I say that most internet atheists here on nairaland argue like that guy, obviously it wouldn't necessarily include tone of voice and bodily mannerisms because you can't see those from typing however what things do they have in common that can be seen from typing.
1. They use profanity a lot
2. They insult and mock often
3. They think worshiping God is a morally evil i.e. is hateful, racist, homophobic and so on.
4. They think worshiping God is some sort of slavery
5. They blame Christianity for slavery, and all sorts of crimes
6. They assume theists are irrational even prior to engaging them in discourse.


The list above isn't exhaustive but I hope the list above helps you a bit to see what I am saying. Mind you, none of the items on the list has anything to do with the proof of God's existence which by the way was what the man with the sign offered to provide.

I still maintain that most nairaland atheist argue in similar fashion to our video chap and I'm willing to back it up with examples as long as you agree to argue within reason.

What you propose would imply that you shift your position to the lighter: "Most internet (nairaland) Atheists you have come across argue in that way"...if this is your new position then your challenge would be appropriate.

Shifting my position like you suggest is unnecessary because whenever a man says most things are such and such, he always speaks from within the scope of his knowledge. Even if I said that "everything that goes up falls down". I would still be speaking from my experience of reality. Yet it is unnecessary for me to say that "everything I have come across that went up came down". It will also be unreasonable to argue that I cannot make that claim until I have thrown every object on earth up. All you have to do to challenge that claim is if I can throw everything up and they come down and you can throw something up that never comes down. Get serious whenever you are ready sir.

Lol!!! of course most (if not all) would disagree...which Christian would want to be 'compared' to an Atheist?...will Obasanjo accept that he looks like a gorilla? Lol!!! No offence intended...Anyways, even some Atheists would disagree with a number of what the dude said.

Would most atheists honestly disagree with the six points I listed about how they argue?

@Bold: Sure you do!!!

No I don't

Lol!!!

I don't know o! Ask LB, he gave the tag.

Then why use it in your defense of him when you don't even know what he means by it? That to me is a shoddy way of saying I don't like Christians but I have no problem with the fake ones i.e. the ones who are not Christians. Translation: "I really don't like Christians.
It's kinda like saying I don't have a problem with non-islamic muslims (what does that even mean?).

I don't know about you but for me, when one is accused of "sitting on the fence" it shows a lack of courage to choose between two sides where there is enough evidence to show that either side may be right or wrong.

In this case, we do not have enough information to determine which side is right or wrong. It would be inappropriate to say one position is wrong while the other right when there is no evidence to show this.

If I should choose a "Yes" or "No" position based on the above constraint then I would be very partial. This is not sitting on the fence in my view.

Erhm.....we are not talking about right or wrong here, we are talking about whether the video was staged or not. What you have done is like watching a football match and saying you don't know if it was staged or not. Then you've proceeded to give reasons why you think it may have been staged yet when asked whether you think it was staged, you reply that you don't know whether you think it was staged or whether you don't. You are simply being ridiculously lukewarm. It is either you think was staged, say so. There is no harm in actually having an opinion.

Mr anony:
Then why use it in your defense of him when you don't even know what he means by it? That to me is a shoddy way of saying I don't like Christians but I have no problem with the fake ones i.e. the ones who are not Christians. Translation: "I really don't like Christians.
It's kinda like saying I don't have a problem with non-islamic muslims (what does that even mean?).

Secular christians are fake christians?

Your falsehoods and Anonyism knows no bounds. Why not ask me the meaning of a secular christian that I talk about rather than guess nonsense?

Mr anony: I'll pretend to be you for a few by mimicing the kind of response and the kind of challenge you're been making. Here we go.

interesting


how do you know this "fact" have you been present at all births?


How do you know that amputees are less than the majority? Do you know all the amputees in the world?


Again how do you know? Have you seen all the human beings in the world? You are committing the fallacy of hasty generalization.


I wonder what deductive reasoning you used in the above. You only made three blanket claims with absolutely no proof.


Your argument also was based on opinion. Writing FACT in all caps does not make it factual. If you had said that some people have two legs, it would be fact but when you say majority of people have two legs, you are only stating your opinion.




You too have made blanket comments and invited ridiculous demands.




Similarly, you are WRONG. If your argument was that "majority of the people you have come across had two legs" then the above method of validating your claim would have been fair but that isn't your claim,
Your argument is clear "majority of people have two legs" and that places a heavier burden of proof on you.

---

I hope I have been able to show you by mimicking you how your responses are unreasonable.


I never said you accused me wrongly. I meant by that comment that I don't think it is fair to accuse someone of what he hasn't said i.e. If a particular atheist has not expressed any views relating to the video neither of us is free to assume that he/she agrees with or disagrees with our video guy as it will amount to putting words in his/her mouth.


Again you are being unreasonable. Perhaps I should make myself clearer with a list. When I say that most internet atheists here on nairaland argue like that guy, obviously it wouldn't necessarily include tone of voice and bodily mannerisms because you can't see those from typing however what things do they have in common that can be seen from typing.
1. They use profanity a lot
2. They insult and mock often
3. They think worshiping God is a morally evil i.e. is hateful, racist, homophobic and so on.
4. They think worshiping God is some sort of slavery
5. They blame Christianity for slavery, and all sorts of crimes
6. They assume theists are irrational even prior to engaging them in discourse.


The list above isn't exhaustive but I hope the list above helps you a bit to see what I am saying. Mind you, none of the items on the list has anything to do with the proof of God's existence which by the way was what the man with the sign offered to provide.

I still maintain that most nairaland atheist argue in similar fashion to our video chap and I'm willing to back it up with examples as long as you agree to argue within reason.





Shifting my position like you suggest is unnecessary because whenever a man says most things are such and such, he always speaks from within the scope of his knowledge. Even if I said that "everything that goes up falls down". I would still be speaking from my experience of reality. Yet it is unnecessary for me to say that "everything I have come across that went up came down". It will also be unreasonable to argue that I cannot make that claim until I have thrown every object on earth up. All you have to do to challenge that claim is if I can throw everything up and they come down and you can throw something up that never comes down. Get serious whenever you are ready sir.




Would most atheists honestly disagree with the six points I listed about how they argue?


No I don't



Then why use it in your defense of him when you don't even know what he means by it? That to me is a shoddy way of saying I don't like Christians but I have no problem with the fake ones i.e. the ones who are not Christians. Translation: "I really don't like Christians.
It's kinda like saying I don't have a problem with non-islamic muslims (what does that even mean?).



Erhm.....we are not talking about right or wrong here, we are talking about whether the video was staged or not. What you have done is like watching a football match and saying you don't know if it was staged or not. Then you've proceeded to give reasons why you think it may have been staged yet when asked whether you think it was staged, you reply that you don't know whether you think it was staged or whether you don't. You are simply being ridiculously lukewarm. It is either you think was staged, say so. There is no harm in actually having an opinion.

Never mind!

Mr Troll: Imagine this scenario in a video. . .
A heavily built man is walking on the street and comes across two atheists discussing about the non-existence of god. He suddenly stops in front of them and starts screaming JESUS IS LORD! JESUS IS LORD!! JESUS IS LORD!!!
By now he's sweating, white shirt all soiled with his drooling spittle and sweat, face all contorted, fist waving, threatening both atheists with eternal damnation all the while spraying them with spit. He then concludes by shouting a bible quote at them: Psalm 14:1 and tells them, GOD IS REAL!!!


Now if i say all Christians argue like this man will i be wrong or right? Heck! You can just close your eyes and imagine that the man is not shouting and listen to his words only, afterall ALL christians would AGREE with ALL his statements. Abi?

Anony i hail o!

Let us see how reasonable you can be.

Notice I have based my arguments on two things. How he argues and What he argues.

I am not merely saying that nairaland atheists agree with him but that they argue like him. i.e they use profanity, insult and mock christians, and accuse Christianity of things that it has nothing to do with.

Compare that to your scenario....Assuming there was no video,

We notice that you have based your argument on the "what" and not the "how". What can we ascertain from typing?

1. will Christians proclaim Jesus is Lord? Yes they will
2. Will they quote the bible including Psalm 14:1? yes they will
3. Will they proclaim God is real? Yes they will.

To argue that your case, you must show that all Christians agree in method (as much as can be replicated in typing) as well as ideology.

I have argued that most nairaland atheists agree in method(profanity, insults and accusations) as well as ideology(atheism). . .unless you believe that the abusive method is a necessary part of atheistic ideology, you sir have only succeeded in presenting a false parallel.

Logicboy03:


Secular christians are fake christians?

Your falsehoods and Anonyism knows no bounds. Why not ask me the meaning of a secular christian that I talk about rather than guess nonsense?

Ok then, What do you mean by the term "secular christian"?

Mr anony:
Ok then, What do you mean by the term "secular christian"?

A christian that accepts secularism. A christian that accepts that government and its laws should be devoid of religious influence. Separation of church and state. A christian that accepts that his religion stops at another persons freedom.

Mr anony:
Let us see how reasonable you can be.

Notice I have based my arguments on two things. How he argues and What he argues.

I am not merely saying that nairaland atheists agree with him but that they argue like him. i.e they use profanity, insult and mock christians, and accuse Christianity of things that it has nothing to do with.

Compare that to your scenario....Assuming there was no video,

We notice that you have based your argument on the "what" and not the "how". What can we ascertain from typing?

1. will Christians proclaim Jesus is Lord? Yes they will
2. Will they quote the bible including Psalm 14:1? yes they will
3. Will they proclaim God is real? Yes they will.

To argue that your case, you must show that all Christians agree in method (as much as can be replicated in typing) as well as ideology.

I have argued that most nairaland atheists agree in method(profanity, insults and accusations) as well as ideology(atheism). . .unless you believe that the abusive method is a necessary part of atheistic ideology, you sir have only succeeded in presenting a false parallel.

How the Village atheists argues?
-The guy walks up to a christian and starts shouting on the street. A clear sign of madness. I would like to see the Nairaland equivalent of that.

What the guy argues?
-A christian should be put in a prison because of a sign board?
-All christians (God botherers) are war criminals?



Anony, keep lying for Jesus!

Logicboy03:


How the Village atheists argues?
-The guy walks up to a christian and starts shouting on the street. A clear sign of madness. I would like to see the Nairaland equivalent of that.

What the guy argues?
-A christian should be put in a prison because of a sign board?
-All christians (God botherers) are war criminals?



Anony, keep lying for Jesus!

Yawn

@ Logicboy

There is nothing in the Christian doctrine that involves government and politics. Secondly there is nothing in Christian doctrine that seeks to impose itself on anyone's freedom. People and governments are very free to reject it.

However the question now becomes:
Should a Christian want Christian leaders? Absolutely.
Should a Christian want leaders govern based on Christian principles? Absolutely.

Notice that the above doesn't mean that a Christian would revolt against non-Christian leaders if they win elections. Notice also that wanting the government to act in accordance to what you believe to be right does not amount to rejecting the separation of Church and State rather it is an exercise of an individual's right to make demands of his/her government.

Now let us look at what you said.

Logicboy03: A christian that accepts secularism. A christian that accepts that government and its laws should be devoid of religious influence.

If by religious influence, you mean Christian influence, then I am afraid that no Christian can possibly be secular because every Christian would naturally want his/her government to uphold the truest and noblest of principles which happen to be the principles of Christianity.
They will of course submit to a Government that disagrees with them but that doesn't mean that is what they believe the Government should be.

Separation of church and state. A christian that accepts that his religion stops at another persons freedom.

This assumes that Christianity is anti-freedom. It isn't. (I'm assuming that by religion you are referring to Christianity.)

Anyone who believes Christianity is oppressive or that Christian principles are not the best principles by which a man ought to live is simply not a Christian.
If being a "secular christian" would imply the above, then such a person cannot possibly be a Christian.

Mr anony: @ Logicboy

There is nothing in the Christian doctrine that involves government and politics. Secondly there is nothing in Christian doctrine that seeks to impose itself on anyone's freedom. People and governments are very free to reject it.

However the question now becomes:
Should a Christian want Christian leaders? Absolutely.
Should a Christian want leaders govern based on Christian principles? Absolutely.

Notice that the above doesn't mean that a Christian would revolt against non-Christian leaders if they win elections. Notice also that wanting the government to act in accordance to what you believe to be right does not amount to rejecting the separation of Church and State rather it is an exercise of an individual's right to make demands of his/her government.

Now let us look at what you said.


If by religious influence, you mean Christian influence, then I am afraid that no Christian can possibly be secular because every Christian would naturally want his/her government to uphold the truest and noblest of principles which are the principles of Christianity.
They will submit to a Government that disagrees with them but that doesn't mean that is what they believe the Government should be.

This assumes that Christianity is anti-freedom. It isn't. (I'm assuming that by religion you are referring to Christianity.)

Anyone who believes Christianity is oppressive or that Christian principles are not the best principles by which a man ought to live is simply not a Christian.
If being a "secular christian" would imply the above, then such a person cannot possibly be a Christian.

What point have you made with this epistle? Nothing. You are a great example of how to argue against yourself.

You threw three strawmen and argued against them. You are arguin with yourself. The strawmen are all in bold with your comment


1) Christianity is anti-freedom
2) Christianity is oppressive
3) Christian principles are not the best principles to live by.


You sir, are a complete dubious gasbag. Explain how these three points were gotten from my clear and innocent comment here;

Logicboy03:


A christian that accepts secularism. A christian that accepts that government and its laws should be devoid of religious influence. Separation of church and state. A christian that accepts that his religion stops at another persons freedom.

Furthermore,
-It is not compulsory that a christian must want a christian president. Given the choice between christian Hitler, Christian GEJ and Hindu Ghandi....the obvious choice would never be any of the two christians.

-By religious influence, I mean all religions including christianity. I guess you didnt read the part where Jesus said "do unto others..."!! If you dont want to live under pagan/sharia law, please dont push for christian theocracy

-Governing a country has nothing to do with living out christian principles. So your point relating wanting secularism to negating christian principles is moot

-There are many things in the christian doctrine that affect govt and politics. Please read your bible. Gay rights, abortion, blasphemy laws etc

-Most western European christians live under secular governments. Take England for example, are you saying that christians in England are not christians if they support their system of government?


After completely destroying all your strawmen and silly points, I would like to leave you with a quote from a much smarter and more recognized christian than you;


[img]http://i.qkme.me/3qgeum.jpg[/img]





#Anony debunked

Logicboy03:


What point have you made with this epistle? Nothing. You are a great example of how to argue against yourself.

You threw three strawmen and argued against them. You are arguin with yourself. The strawmen are all in bold with your comment


1) Christianity is anti-freedom
2) Christianity is oppressive
3) Christian principles are not the best principles to live by.


You sir, are a complete dubious gasbag. Explain how these three points were gotten from my clear and innocent comment here;

Interesting. So I have argued strawmen by directly engaging with you? Do you even know what you are talking about? Let us see that your comment again.

Logicboy03:
A christian that accepts secularism. A christian that accepts that government and its laws should be devoid of religious influence. Separation of church and state. A christian that accepts that his religion stops at another persons freedom.

Please explain to me how the bold makes sense and why it need be said at all if you don't think that the christian's belief was impinging on another person's freedom in the first place.
If you don't think christianity by nature is anti-freedom other people's freedom, why the comment? what then is so special about a "secular christian" how is he/she different from a normal christian?

Furthermore,
-It is not compulsory that a christian must want a christian president. Given the choice between christian Hitler, Christian GEJ and Hindu Ghandi....the obvious choice would never be any of the two christians.

Did Hitler and GEJ lead based on Christian principles? If they do not lead based on Christian principles, can they be said to be Christian leaders?

-By religious influence, I mean all religions including christianity. I guess you didnt read the part where Jesus said "do unto others..."!! If you dont want to live under pagan/sharia law, please dont push for christian theocracy

But we are talking specifically about Christianity here. No Christian thinks his belief is on par with other beliefs. All Christians know that the Christian worldview is true and all other worldviews have got it wrong. A government that has no respect for God is simply a worse government by Christian standards.

-Governing a country has nothing to do with living out christian principles. So your point relating wanting secularism to negating christian principles is moot

Erhm it should have everything to do with living out Christian principles if it wants to be a good government. A christian government for instance will never legalize mass murder of babies in the name of abortion, it has a moral compass by which it's policies are guided. Any government that doesn't have any clear moral principle by which it is guided is in deep trouble i.e secularist governments

-There are many things in the christian doctrine that affect govt and politics. Please read your bible. Gay rights, abortion, blasphemy laws etc

Heterosexuals do not have any rights that homosexuals don't, abortion is murder and the early church never oppressed anyone for "blasphemy" rather they were know to go to their deaths praying for the forgiveness of sinners. Go and read the bible

-Most western European christians live under secular governments. Take England for example, are you saying that christians in England are not christians if they support their system of government?

I have answered this already

After completely destroying all your strawmen and silly points,

You did no such thing

I would like to leave you with a quote from a much smarter and more recognized christian than you;


[img]http://i.qkme.me/3qgeum.jpg[/img]

From what I know about Christ and what I know about Obama, I cannot say he is a Christian.

#Anony debunked

This phrase has become pretty meaningless now.

Mr anony:
Interesting. So I have argued strawmen by directly engaging with you? Do you even know what you are talking about? Let us see that your comment again.

Please explain to me how the bold makes sense and why it need be said at all if you don't think that the christian's belief was impinging on another person's freedom in the first place.
If you don't think christianity by nature is anti-freedom other people's freedom, why the comment? what then is so special about a "secular christian" how is he/she different from a normal christian?



Did Hitler and GEJ lead based on Christian principles? If they do not lead based on Christian principles, can they be said to be Christian leaders?

But we are talking specifically about Christianity here. No Christian thinks his belief is on par with other beliefs. All Christians know that the Christian worldview is true and all other worldviews have got it wrong. A government that has no respect for God is simply a worse government by Christian standards.


Erhm it should have everything to do with living out Christian principles if it wants to be a good government. A christian government for instance will never legalize mass murder of babies in the name of abortion, it has a moral compass by which it's policies are guided. Any government that doesn't have any clear moral principle by which it is guided is in deep trouble i.e secularist governments


Heterosexuals do not have any rights that homosexuals don't, abortion is murder and the early church never oppressed anyone for "blasphemy" rather they were know to go to their deaths praying for the forgiveness of sinners. Go and read the bible


I have answered this already


You did no such thing


From what I know about Christ and what I know about Obama, I cannot say he is a Christian.



This phrase has become pretty meaningless now.

Ah, Anony, I was wrong......you are right.....


I agree with all your points.....they are 100% valid and true
-Obama is not a christian
-Secular christians in the West are not christians
-Secularism finds christianity oppressive




MTCHEW.

Mr anony:
Interesting. So I have argued strawmen by directly engaging with you? Do you even know what you are talking about? Let us see that your comment again.

Logicboy03:
A christian that accepts secularism. A christian that accepts that government and its laws should be devoid of religious influence. Separation of church and state. A christian that accepts that his religion stops at another persons freedom.



Please explain to me how the bold makes sense and why it need be said at all if you don't think that the christian's belief was impinging on another person's freedom in the first place.
If you don't think christianity by nature is anti-freedom other people's freedom, why the comment? what then is so special about a "secular christian" how is he/she different from a normal christian?



.

Your ignorance of human rights and international law are to blame here. There is a saying that;

"Your freedom to swing your hand ends at the tip of another person's nose".

The simple point of the bold is that any rights (eg freedom of religion) stops being a right the moment it encroaches on another person's freedom.

So if a muslim says that a non-muslim must fast because muslims fast- that is using religion to take away someone elses freedom.

So if a christian lawmaker wants to enforce "SU"/"deeper life" dress codes on citizens, that is wrong and taking away freedom of people.

Logicboy03:


Ah, Anony, I was wrong......you are right.....


I agree with all your points.....they are 100% valid and true
-Obama is not a christian
-Secular christians in the West are not christians
-Secularism finds christianity oppressive




MTCHEW.

Good for you, at least you are learning something. Now let us continue your education...

Logicboy03:
Your ignorance of human rights and international law are to blame here. There is a saying that;

"Your freedom to swing your hand ends at the tip of another person's nose".

The simple point of the bold is that any rights (eg freedom of religion) stops being a right the moment it encroaches on another person's freedom.

Good, then you will also agree that the right to hold a naturalist worldview equally stops being a right the moment it encroaches on another's convictions.

So if a muslim says that a non-muslim must fast because muslims fast- that is using religion to take away someone elses freedom.

True, but then muslims are not known to force non-muslims under their authority to observe ramadan. What do you say of a "secular government" that encroaches upon a muslim's right to marry multiple wives or the rights of a muslim woman to wear the burka?

So if a christian lawmaker wants to enforce "SU"/"deeper life" dress codes on citizens, that is wrong and taking away freedom of people.

True, but then the "Deeper life" dress code is not the same as Christian dress code. Secondly nothing in Christianity teaches that anyone has authority to enforce laws that dictate how one ought to dress. And even though we strongly disapprove of immoral practices, we do not have the right to force anyone into righteousness.
Salvation is and has always been God's gift to man. It is no longer a gift if it is forced upon the receiver now. Is it?
We cannot go foul of God's Word spoken to us in the bible.

Mr anony:
Let us see how reasonable you can be.

Notice I have based my arguments on two things. How he argues and What he argues.

I am not merely saying that nairaland atheists agree with him but that they argue like him. i.e they use profanity, insult and mock christians, and accuse Christianity of things that it has nothing to do with.

Compare that to your scenario....Assuming there was no video,

We notice that you have based your argument on the "what" and not the "how". What can we ascertain from typing?

1. will Christians proclaim Jesus is Lord? Yes they will
2. Will they quote the bible including Psalm 14:1? yes they will
3. Will they proclaim God is real? Yes they will.

To argue that your case, you must show that all Christians agree in method (as much as can be replicated in typing) as well as ideology.

I have argued that most nairaland atheists agree in method(profanity, insults and accusations) as well as ideology(atheism). . .unless you believe that the abusive method is a necessary part of atheistic ideology, you sir have only succeeded in presenting a false parallel.

anony one question? Or two...
1) Did the christian in my imaginary video use profanity?
2) Would you say all internet christians argue like him then? What parts would they disagree with?

Note: we cannot tell if they'll be sweating and soiling their shirts behind their keybords o

Mr anony:
Good for you, at least you are learning something. Now let us continue your education...


Good, then you will also agree that the right to hold a naturalist worldview equally stops being a right the moment it encroaches on another's convictions.


True, but then muslims are not known to force non-muslims under their authority to observe ramadan. What do you say of a "secular government" that encroaches upon a muslim's right to marry multiple wives or the rights of a muslim woman to wear the burka?


True, but then the "Deeper life" dress code is not the same as Christian dress code. Secondly nothing in Christianity teaches that anyone has authority to enforce laws that dictate how one ought to dress. And even though we strongly disapprove of immoral practices, we do not have the right to force anyone into righteousness.
Salvation is and has always been God's gift to man. It is no longer a gift if it is forced upon the receiver now. Is it?
We cannot go foul of God's Word spoken to us in the bible.

Lol.....your comments do not change the factS.

A christian, an agnostic and an atheist have all shown you that your op is not only nonsense but silly with respect to atheists. Go home

Logicboy03:


Lol.....your comments do not change the factS.

A christian, an agnostic and an atheist have all shown you that your op is not only nonsense but silly with respect to atheists. Go home

Lolol....Logicboy fires his retreating shot. Please what exactly did they show? ok never mind, I won't stand in the way of your retreat.

Mr Troll: anony one question? Or two...
1) Did the christian in my imaginary video use profanity?

No he didn't

2) Would you say all internet christians argue like him then? What parts would they disagree with?

The don't disagree with what he said but then you didn't give us much to go on concerning the "how" that can be gleaned from typing.

Mr anony:
Lolol....Logicboy fires his retreating shot. Please what exactly did they show? ok never mind, I won't stand in the way of your retreat.

Retreat? Of course.

Cant you see that the others left this thread for dead because you become the master of the merry go round and strawmen. You tried to make fun of nairaland atheists by posting a video of a mentally unstable atheist shouting at an innocent christian in public but it backfired

Logicboy03:

Retreat? Of course.

Cant you see that the others left this thread for dead because you become the master of the merry go round and strawmen. You tried to make fun of nairaland atheists by posting a video of a mentally unstable atheist shouting at an innocent christian in public but it backfired

Urhm....I wasn't making fun of nairaland atheists, I was only feeling sorry for them. The dude reminded me of you lot. . . . . .and no I don't think he was mentally unstable

Mr anony:
Urhm....I wasn't making fun of nairaland atheists, I was only feeling sorry for them. The dude reminded me of you lot. . . . . .and no I don't think he was mentally unstable

Have you seen me shouting on the street or saying that christians should be put in prison?

If not, you are a douchebag for saying that he reminds you of me.

Logicboy03: Have you seen me shouting on the street or saying that christians should be put in prison?

If not, you are a douchebag for saying that he reminds you of me.

Interesting. Why don't we study this comment of yours here:

logicboy:
Look, I have already said that Pagan Naija's picture of a burnt church is aggressive. We do not need to burn churches. Violence not needed.

The part about Japan is fair game. Christian missionaries did not go to Japan to do good. If they were allowed to carry out their mission, it would have been Shintoists and Buddhists executed and persecuted for their heresy. I do not believe in the death sentence but those christians in Japan needed to be punished. Imprisonment could have been a better punishment.

While I agree that Pagan Naija's rhetoric might be over the top, he is not a terrorist.

I agree with his sentiments regarding the removal of christianity and islam in Nigeria. We dont need both. However, I do not suscribe to terrorism.

https://www.nairaland.com/953389/let-us-work-strategy-fellow/1#11018959

Wow....


1) The "tolerant" atheist in the video said christians should be put in prison just for their beliefs which he doesnt agree with

2) I was talking about a past event where missionaries came to Japan to dominate/conquer in Japan (just like they did to red indians) and the Japanese emperor killed them. Self defense. I said that imprisonment would have been better option for those killed.



Anony says 1 and 2 are the same. If I say Anony is dubious.....

Logicboy03: Wow....


1) The "tolerant" atheist in the video said christians should be put in prison just for their beliefs which he doesnt agree with

2) I was talking about a past event where missionaries came to Japan to dominate/conquer in Japan (just like they did to red indians) and the Japanese emperor killed them. Self defense. I said that imprisonment would have been better option for those killed.



Anony says 1 and 2 are the same. If I say Anony is dubious.....

Good now let us compare the two of you a it more critically.

1. You both believe that Christians support slavery and racism.

2. He believes Christians should be imprisoned for racism and slavery, while you on the other hand justifies the actions of ancient Japan as "self-defence" for killing Christians who had not done anything. In fact, you would recommend imprisonment for what you suspect the christians were going to do.

....Yeah I see a world of difference between the two of you. At least he condemns people for what he thinks they did. You on the other hand are quite happy to condemn them for what you think they might do.

^^^^^Why don't we read a few details of this "Self defence"

Martyrs of Japan
...After the Shogun decided that Christianity needed to be suppressed, the Christian teachers were ordered to leave the country. They did so, however, a few decided to sneak back in, including the Augustinian Father Pedro de Zuiniga and the Dominican Father Luis Florez. They went on board a ship from Manila captained by a Japanese Christian named Joachim. The vessel, however, was captured and plundered by the Dutch who reported to the Japanese (into whose custody they were given) that there were Catholic priests on board. They were imprisoned in Hirato; however, they (along with a number of other Christians) broke out of prison with the help of another Dominican father from Manila.

All the prisoners were recaptured, and the emperor ordered the governor of Nagasaki to burn alive Captain Joachim with his entire officers and crew, the two priests, and all the other monks in this and other prisons (both foreigners and Japanese), as well as all the wives and children of those who had previously been martyred.

The governor then proceeded to Hirato and examined the prisoners. He questioned them about whether they were Christians, where they were born and when they were baptized. He instructed them to renounce Christianity, and that the Emperor had given him a promise that if they did so, their lives would be spared. They repeatedly refused to renounce the faith. Therefore, the governor ordered the captain and the two priests to be burned alive, and for ten sailors to be beheaded. The three to be burned asked for what reason they were being killed, and when upon being told they were being executed for illegally seeking to spread the Christian faith in Japan, they rejoiced for being able to die for Christ.

They were executed in Nagasaki on August 19, 1622. The sailors were first beheaded, as the three were made ready for burning. Before they were burned, Joachim began preaching to the crowd that had come to watch. He was ordered to stop, but he asked what greater pain they could inflict upon him that than which they were already going to do. The fire was then set and Joachim continued to preach as he was being burned.

The heads of the three were removed and placed upon a board as a public warning. The bodies were left where they were for several days, and large crowds of Japanese Christians arrived, venerating them. The guards beat them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyrs_of_Japan

Yeah, I know you don't agree with the killing. You only wanted them to be kept in prison for wanting to share their faith.

Mr anony: ^^^^^Why don't we read a few details of this "Self defence"

Martyrs of Japan
...After the Shogun decided that Christianity needed to be suppressed, the Christian teachers were ordered to leave the country. They did so, however, a few decided to sneak back in, including the Augustinian Father Pedro de Zuiniga and the Dominican Father Luis Florez. They went on board a ship from Manila captained by a Japanese Christian named Joachim. The vessel, however, was captured and plundered by the Dutch who reported to the Japanese (into whose custody they were given) that there were Catholic priests on board. They were imprisoned in Hirato; however, they (along with a number of other Christians) broke out of prison with the help of another Dominican father from Manila.

All the prisoners were recaptured, and the emperor ordered the governor of Nagasaki to burn alive Captain Joachim with his entire officers and crew, the two priests, and all the other monks in this and other prisons (both foreigners and Japanese), as well as all the wives and children of those who had previously been martyred.

The governor then proceeded to Hirato and examined the prisoners. He questioned them about whether they were Christians, where they were born and when they were baptized. He instructed them to renounce Christianity, and that the Emperor had given him a promise that if they did so, their lives would be spared. They repeatedly refused to renounce the faith. Therefore, the governor ordered the captain and the two priests to be burned alive, and for ten sailors to be beheaded. The three to be burned asked for what reason they were being killed, and when upon being told they were being executed for illegally seeking to spread the Christian faith in Japan, they rejoiced for being able to die for Christ.

They were executed in Nagasaki on August 19, 1622. The sailors were first beheaded, as the three were made ready for burning. Before they were burned, Joachim began preaching to the crowd that had come to watch. He was ordered to stop, but he asked what greater pain they could inflict upon him that than which they were already going to do. The fire was then set and Joachim continued to preach as he was being burned.

The heads of the three were removed and placed upon a board as a public warning. The bodies were left where they were for several days, and large crowds of Japanese Christians arrived, venerating them. The guards beat them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyrs_of_Japan

Yeah, I know you don't agree with the killing. You only wanted them to be kept in prison for wanting to share their faith.

Your story is incomplete and those that died were criminals not matyrs or saints.


Using your incomplete story;
The missionaries were deported, yet they came back again through smuggling thus, breaking the law. Yet your argument is that they should not have been imprisoned


Using the full story ad facts
These missionaries were colonialists who converted, dominated and conquered foriegn lands in the name of the Queen and God. They were never innocent. They deserved prison for trying to colonize a foreign territory

The shogunate and imperial government at first supported the Catholic mission and the missionaries, thinking that they would reduce the power of the Buddhist monks, and help trade with Spain and Portugal. However, the Shogunate was also wary of colonialism, seeing that in the Philippines the Spanish had taken power after converting the population. The government increasingly saw Roman Catholicism as a threat, and started persecuting Christians. Christianity was banned and those Japanese who refused to abandon their faith were killed.

Anony, I go back to the original argument-

Logicboy03:


Have you seen me shouting on the street or saying that christians should be put in prison?

If not, you are a douchebag for saying that he reminds you of me.

You are an 1diot

Logicboy03: Anony, I go back to the original argument-



You are an 1diot

What a reasonable man you are

Logicboy03:
Your story is incomplete and those that died were criminals not matyrs or saints.

Interesting. What was their crime?

Using your incomplete story;
The missionaries were deported, yet they came back again through smuggling thus, breaking the law. Yet your argument is that they should not have been imprisoned

If this is truly what you think, then you must also hold that the atheists in Pakistan who were imprisoned for blasphemy were criminals who deserve to be put in jail for breaking the law.

Using the full story ad facts
These missionaries were colonialists who converted, dominated and conquered foriegn lands in the name of the Queen and God. They were never innocent. They deserved prison for trying to colonize a foreign territory

You have to ask yourself honestly, did they try to conquer foreign lands? If so, with what guns and swords? . . .or were they killed on the mere suspicion of what they might do? Let us look at your attempt at justification shall we?

The shogunate and imperial government at first supported the Catholic mission and the missionaries, thinking that they would reduce the power of the Buddhist monks, and help trade with Spain and Portugal. However, the Shogunate was also wary of colonialism, seeing that in the Philippines the Spanish had taken power after converting the population. The government increasingly saw Roman Catholicism as a threat, and started persecuting Christians. Christianity was banned and those Japanese who refused to abandon their faith were killed.

All you have shown is that the Japanese government were afraid that Christian ideas might lead to a European controlled government this is similar to people who are wary and rightfully so, that atheistic and materialistic ideas would lead to a socialist/communist government. Should atheists then be imprisoned or put to death because we are wary of a communist threat? In like manner, what prevented the Japanese government from engaging in a battle of ideas with the Christian position? Was imprisoning and killing them for their faith the right thing to do?

From your persistent attempts to defend the vile actions of the Japanese shogunate, it appears to me that you really hold worse views than those expressed by the guy in the video.

Mr anony:
Interesting. What was their crime?

1) Illegal immigration
2) Bribery/Fraud with the help of christian ship captains
3) Colonial subversion of the sovereignty of the Japanese kingdom

Mr anony:
If this is truly what you think, then you must also hold that the atheists in Pakistan who were imprisoned for blasphemy were criminals who deserve to be put in jail for breaking the law.

You are criminal for commiting a crime. You can break the law and not be a criminal.

It is clear that you had no argument against the crimes of the missionaries and so you had to anonynize and compare their illegal immigration and colonialism to blasphemy.

Lets examine how silly you are for even comparing the two

Illegal immigration + smuggling; Universal, logical and easily provable crime that destroys a society/economy

Blasphemy; ambiguous, subject to religion, archaic and impratical law(A sunni will blaspheme to a shia). HAVE YOU NOTICE THAT IT IS ONLY BACKWARDS COUNTRIES THAT HAVE BLASPHEMY LAWS? COMPARE THE TOP 10 ADVANCED COUNTRIES AND YOU WILL SEE THAT NONE HAVE BLASPHEMY LAWS.

Mr anony:
You have to ask yourself honestly, did they try to conquer foreign lands? If so, with what guns and swords? . . .or were they killed on the mere suspicion of what they might do? Let us look at your attempt at justification shall we?

It is clear that you are ignorant of history. These missionaries already conquered Phillipines with their false gospel. They were trading slaves in Africa and marginalising the native indigines of the Americas. Yet, the Japanese emperor should have let them freely carry out their dubious missionary activities knowing that they would colonize the Japanese society?

Not what they might do. What they have done and what they will do. Notice how all catholic societies of the past were subbject to rome? Even the UK until a King rejected the pope? The wise Asians saw through the missionary nonsense.

These same missionaries engaged in racism, slavery and fraud of the highest order, yet they shouldnt go to prison.


ANONY, SHUT UP

Mr anony:
All you have shown is that the Japanese government were afraid that Christian ideas might lead to a European controlled government this is similar to people who are wary and rightfully so, that atheistic and materialistic ideas would lead to a socialist/communist government. Should atheists then be imprisoned or put to death because we are wary of a communist threat? In like manner, what prevented the Japanese government from engaging in a battle of ideas with the Christian position? Was imprisoning and killing them for their faith the right thing to do?

^^
LOAD OF BULLSHYT

Christian missionaries from Europe did engage in imperialism and yes, it means that christianity as practiced by the spaniards and british were imperialistic. The Japanese govt was right to put a stop to that nonsense. Note how Japan today is better than all the christian colonies where the azzhole missionaries went to spread their false gospel.

Atheism doesnt lead to communism. Dont be an 1diot. Communal practices, nationalism and collectivist ideologies lead to communism.

You didnt study politics, economics or history past a basic level. and it is very evident. Please kindly keep quiet on things you dont know

Mr anony:
From your persistent attempts to defend the vile actions of the Japanese shogunate, it appears to me that you really hold worse views than those expressed by the guy in the video.

SMH. Faulty premise, faulty conclusions. I do not support unnecessary killings. You can never be right with the above comment. Even if you could make the above comment true by some miraculous feat, you would still be a foolish person. Why?

You support the right of the isrealites to kill and occupy lands that had no trouble with them in the old testament. Take the promised land. It was not an empty land . Yet, the isrealites took it on the orders of their God. This makes you a hypocrite

Logicboy03:
1) Illegal immigration
2) Bribery/Fraud with the help of christian ship captains
3) Colonial subversion of the sovereignty of the Japanese kingdom

Lololol..........Interesting.

You are criminal for commiting a crime. You can break the law and not be a criminal.

And this is because breaking the law is not a crime?

It is clear that you had no argument against the crimes of the missionaries and so you had to anonynize and compare their illegal immigration and colonialism to blasphemy.

Lets examine how silly you are for even comparing the two

Illegal immigration + smuggling; Universal, logical and easily provable crime that destroys a society/economy

Blasphemy; ambiguous, subject to religion, archaic and impratical law(A sunni will blaspheme to a shia). HAVE YOU NOTICE THAT IT IS ONLY BACKWARDS COUNTRIES THAT HAVE BLASPHEMY LAWS? COMPARE THE TOP 10 ADVANCED COUNTRIES AND YOU WILL SEE THAT NONE HAVE BLASPHEMY LAWS.

No sir, you don't get to cherry pick for your own convenience which laws soveriegn countries ought to have. If you claim that the missionaries committed a crime, then you must hold that your blaspheming brothers in Bangladesh committed a crime as well namely,
1. Illegal use of the internet
2. Offensive and Defamatory speech against the religion of the citizens of the land (similar to how you are calling for a ban on me for exposing the vile behavior of certain sodomites by claiming I am being "offensive"
3. Subversion of the sovereignty of the Bangladeshi nation

. . . .unless you subscribe to a higher law than those made by men by which you judge the nations you have no basis upon which to claim some people are criminals and others aren't when they both committed crimes against law of the land they were inhabiting.

It is clear that you are ignorant of history. These missionaries already conquered Phillipines with their false gospel. They were trading slaves in Africa and marginalising the native indigines of the Americas. Yet, the Japanese emperor should have let them freely carry out their dubious missionary activities knowing that they would colonize the Japanese society?

...and so the Japanaese shogunate was justified in killing and imprisoning the missionaries including Japanese citizens who converted to Christianity?

Not what they might do. What they have done and what they will do. Notice how all catholic societies of the past were subbject to rome? Even the UK until a King rejected the pope? The wise Asians saw through the missionary nonsense.

Speculation

These same missionaries engaged in racism, slavery and fraud of the highest order, yet they shouldnt go to prison.

Give a few examples of such missionaries

ANONY, SHUT UP

yawn

^^
LOAD OF BULLSHYT

Christian missionaries from Europe did engage in imperialism and yes, it means that christianity as practiced by the spaniards and british were imperialistic. The Japanese govt was right to put a stop to that nonsense. Note how Japan today is better than all the christian colonies where the azzhole missionaries went to spread their false gospel.

I am sorry but you have made a very silly argument that doesn't follow. You might as well argue that Germany is prosperous today because it killed all those Jews in the 30s.

Atheism doesnt lead to communism. Dont be an 1diot. Communal practices, nationalism and collectivist ideologies lead to communism.
You didnt study politics, economics or history past a basic level. and it is very evident. Please kindly keep quiet on things you dont know

Christianity doesn't lead to colonialism. Don't be an 1diot. Imperial practices, nationalism and jingoist ideologies lead to colonialism.
You didn't study politics, economics or history past a basic level. and it is very evident. Please kindly keep quiet on things you don't know

Funny how your own words condemn you, Mr DoubleStandard

SMH. Faulty premise, faulty conclusions. I do not support unnecessary killings. You can never be right with the above comment. Even if you could make the above comment true by some miraculous feat, you would still be a foolish person. Why?

You support the right of the isrealites to kill and occupy lands that had no trouble with them in the old testament. Take the promised land. It was not an empty land . Yet, the isrealites took it on the orders of their God. This makes you a hypocrite

Interesting how you don't support unnecessary killings yet you think that the extermination of Christians in ancient Japan was necessary to Japan's current economic success.

Secondly, your personal swipe at me is irrelevant to the discussion and does not change the fact that you have defended the horrific persecution of a people just because of what they believe

Besides, I thought the bible was fiction to you. Nonetheless, your ignorance of biblical and ancient near east history is at it again. We shall explore that tangent upon a day but that day is not today. I'm not chasing your red herring tonight.