Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Douchebazooka t1_j2n6zb5 wrote

Reply to comment by lrpfftt in The nun and the monk who fell in love and married by Stanny491

You do realize this kind of take isn't clever or new, right? It just sounds like a teenager who just told their parents they're an atheist and thinks anyone else cares.

−13

lrpfftt t1_j2n79v4 wrote

Sounds more to me like someone who never fell for religious nonsense in the first place.

It's good that this couple found one another and had a real life instead of the "cult" they belonged to before.

5

notnotaginger t1_j2ne78l wrote

They asked a question you dodged: hostile or realistic?

2

Douchebazooka t1_j2nea1w wrote

I didn't dodge it; it's a false dichotomy. It's not a dodge to refuse to engage with fallacious arguments.

−5

notnotaginger t1_j2nkev3 wrote

Can you explain how it is hostile, then?

4

Douchebazooka t1_j2nkrgm wrote

Because the definitions of hostile include "antagonistic," "not friendly," and "showing a desire to thwart." It's literally right there for everyone to read, unless you're cherry-picking your definition of hostile to only include outright attacks rather than disposition.

−2

notnotaginger t1_j2nmke1 wrote

And how did their comment fit that, is the question? Or is it just your interpretation?

2

Douchebazooka t1_j2nmvqs wrote

>Almost like the whole concept is flawed and full of contradictions. And people use whatever part they need to fit the point, they're trying to make

Perhaps you can tell me how the above is friendly to someone's religious beliefs instead, because if you can't find the hostility in that comment, I honestly have no idea how we're going to find reasonable common ground here

−1

notnotaginger t1_j2nnbr9 wrote

Is pointing out flaws hostile? Yikes. If your boss points out an error in your work, is that hostile? Or is it important to analyze our own flaws?

Your definition is super snowflakey.

4

Douchebazooka t1_j2nnjfm wrote

You're either being intentionally dense or playing coy. I'm not sure which. Claiming something is a flaw while arguing a straw man is not genuinely pointing out flaws. It's the underlying supposition and approach that is hostile.

−1

notnotaginger t1_j2no6am wrote

Where’s the flaw? Do you have an assertion that there is no contradictions? Because I went to Bible school and in my education even the professors pointed out contradictions and how they dealt with them

3

Douchebazooka t1_j2nobdb wrote

Ah, "Bible school." Have a nice day. You're not engaged in an honest discussion, and I'm not interested in wasting my time. :)

−1

notnotaginger t1_j2nox26 wrote

Sounds like your hostile towards Bible school, by your own definition. Where I am it’s a four year university, and I came out with a BA.

For someone who wants others to follow logical rules of discourse, you’re dismissing mine based on your own prejudices.

If you truly care about logical discourse, you can ALWAYS explain your argument.

And obfuscating when I ask about contradictions says a lot.

You have much higher standards for other then yourself.

6

[deleted] t1_j2odp6x wrote

Oh look, a religious hypocrite. What a rare find!

3

Douchebazooka t1_j2omgk7 wrote

Oh look, accusations of hypocrisy from a nu-atheist with literally no supporting evidence! How novel and not at all a rhetorical device at this point!

−2