How do you compassionately tell a supernatural believing person that they are borderline stupid?


Wow I hope this is a joke, because those people would have been just as bigoted as the church you claim is so awful, because they held those same beliefs.

Also you don’t. He says you shouldn’t call people stupid. You’re wanting a way to ‘compassionately’ call someone stupid…

You can’t use something like secular law as evidence if you have no proof! You’re providing evidence without sources and proof! You’re not acting very secular tbh.


I am beginning to believe that you have not read the NT. If you had, you could not possibly say that my Jesus has no good moral tenets. And as to being a figment of my imagination, Jesus’ existence is accepted by many historians.I have never run from a moral discussion.

He was a theist???

What people?

What law do you mean? Are you trying to tell a CHRISTian that he has to live according to the law of Moses? Considering Jesus himself was the fulfilment of the law?

A truly honest man does not just accept whatever garbage spews forth from one’s mouth as truth.


What the religious believe is the cause of continuing homophobia and misogyny. You may not care about the harm that that continues to do to society but women and gays do. Ignoring that is you not following the Golden Rule. You may not be defending that evil but seem to have decided to ignore it for the good you perceive religions as doing.

The law of the excluded middle says it is one or the other.

?? Yet that is what you are also doing here and now in our thinking?

I agree that morals are subjective and you will note that theists think them objective as they do believe that some God has written them in stone. So to speak.

Do you not think it exists?

I do and I am in good company as shown in this link that also shows evidence of it’s reality.


I am, by stating that secular law is a lot better than theistic law.

Secular law does not accept genocide as a worthy form of justice while Christians do by adoring a genocidal son murdering God.

You seem to agree with their ideology and seem to be thinking the same way as you do not call out their God as a prick for using genocide.


That is a lie if you are talking of a miracle working Jesus.

As to moral discussion, you lie again if memory serves me.

Perhaps my memory is off. If so, shall we discus the immorality of Jesus’ no divorce policy?

Do you think it moral to prevent people who are in loveless marriages from seeking a loving partner?

We would likely brand them as secular humanists.

I mentioned the stoning of unruly children and could add fornicators and those who worked the Sabbath.


I’m not ignoring it though. This whole argument has been on calling supernatural believing people stupid. My point is, you can’t just assume someone’s intelligence from their religious beliefs. Then this devolved into a debate about the effect of religion, which it is undeniable the role religion has played in shaping the world, both for the better and worse. And what do you have to say to the plentitude of women and lgbt members that are religious? Because there are many gays who are christian(both catholic and protestant), because the new testament preaches forgiveness and all that. The only reason anyone is bigoted today is mainly of their own personal beliefs. All religious documents(like the Bible or Quran) have been interpreted in many ways, allowing for diversity of belief. So you can’t just lump all supernatural believing people in together, because that’s literally most of the planet. Most people believe in some sort of religion, or ghosts.

That ‘law’ has no application here. Something doesn’t have to bee ‘intelligent’ or ‘stupid’. It can be neither. I never said god existed, in which case that law would have applicability, because there’s nothing between existence and non-existence. There is an in-between between Stupidity and Intelligence.

How am I stuck up? By stating that it’s pompous to call every supernatural believing person stupid? O.K.

Okay, so your view of morality isn’t necessarily the ‘right’ way.(ofc i agree with you that lgbt and women are equal to anyone else.) But since morality is subjective, everyone can choose their morals, meaning no set of morals is actually ‘correct’.

Ofc altruism exists, but realize those animals are doing it for animals similar to themselves. We don’t know how early humans would have reacted to homosexuality(now they probably wouldn’t have worried too much about it, but we don’t know). Maybe as they developed, they would have come to disapprove of homosexuality without the influence of religion. We can’t ever know.

No you’re not, if you’re truly secular you would be able to provide evidence. Your claim of secular law coming from people who are more intelligent and moral that those who were around 2-3thousand years ago is unproven! Who are these people? Because let me tell you, most of the laws made in the united states today were made by religious people(now the laws are not biblical law, but the people who made them were religious. I doubt John Marshall would fit your criteria of morality and intelligence.)

Also again, I’m not defending or agreeing with the beliefs of supernatural believing people. I’m merely saying that you can’t call people stupid just because of their religious beliefs, and that to ignore the role of religion in history is unsecular. The evidence is all there, religion has done damage, but it has been important throughout history. To accept that fact isn’t me being theistic, it’s me recognizing it’s role. Just because I recognize the importance of religion in history and I recognize the fact that people may find solace in religion(women and lgbt people alike) doesn’t mean I accept a religion in its entirety. It just means I have the capability to see the benefit of something I disagree with to some people. That’s it.


I was talking about Jesus of Nazareth, who it is claimed performed miracles.

Then clearly your memory fails you.

I would firstly question why there is no love at the present time, clearly there was at one time, why isn’t there now?

I would also point out that Jesus does not say that one cannot divorce. He is actually trying to prevent what occurs frequently in modern society, divorce because one simply gets tired of the other person. Marriage is about commitment, a concept many modern people find difficult.

Secular humanists are not perfect.

And why would such a law affect me?


I can and do as they are all going into moral and intellectual dissonance. They all want to believe lies to appease their fear of the afterlife. They are a disgrace to the human race.

Your misuse of language does.

The moral set is what the majority rule on and follow and in our world, thank all the Gods, that set is secular law and not the unjust and immoral theistic law.

Try logic and reason. We can logically surmise.
Religion is hate of the other based. Evolution is based on our passing on our genes and it would see gays as less competition in doing that and would embrace gays.

Perhaps, but not religious enough to accept the unjust and immoral laws their God was pushing.

So you think women and gays find solace in a homophobic and misogynous religion.

You are thinking in a stupid way now.


It would not if you ignore the Golden Rule and do not act in a moral way.


I act morally, apply the golden rule, and am faithful to the Scriptures.



You ignores these and hold to supernatural garbage and do not correct that poor thinking in yourself or others.

Proverbs 3:12 For whom the Lord loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.

1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.


So half of all scientists are a disgrace to the human race. Cool.

How did I misuse language? You’re the one who used an inapplicable law, there is an in-between between intelligence and stupidity.

So if most people were to be in favor of theistic law then it would be morally acceptable? Because that’s what your saying.

Maybe, but maybe not. Because if you want to think of it logically, men are naturally more sexual in nature than women. What would happen if more and more men were forming bonds with other men instead of women? What if as they started to develop during puberty, more and more they formed interests specifically towards men? Certain groups with limited females may lead to animosity between females and gays. Or maybe the female may become attached to the male they engage in intercourse with, but that male is more attached to another male and the female acts hostile towards the men.(this could work vice-versa too, if more homosexual men get attached to men and then when those men turn to females for production and instead favor the female over the male, the male may act hostile towards the female which in turn could lead toward animosity towards gays.) But again, we can’t know, this is all hypothetical.

Lmao yeah they were, they would have hated gays and saw women as inferior. Hell they also saw blacks as inferior. So. These “secular” laws (which you haven’t given a list of these laws or list of secular people who created these laws. I’m just using the U.S Law system as an example because you’re vary vague on secular law) don’t really have secular origins.

Well you seem to not get that there are many different denominations within christianity, and everyone has their own interpretation. So yes lgbt people and women can find solace within religion. If you can’t recognize that fact then you need to re-evaluate who is stupid in this argument. You put your personal beliefs upon everybody and can’t analyze a situation from a neutral perspective. For someone who’s claiming to be more intelligent because your secular, you’re really not showing this intelligence you claim to have.


I am saying that the majority decides and forms the legislation for what is moral or not within a democratic nation.

That does not mean that the majority cannot change it’s mind if they recognize the error of their ways.

Sure, but gay sex is not a threat to heterosexuals and the more of that is about, the better it is for the chances of a heterosexual passing on his genes.

More men would or should be pleased as that means less competition for fertile women.

The only group I know of like that has the females having more than one husband. The husbands rejoice at the notion of more gays as then a man might be the only husband and not have to share his wife.


What is their origin them?


So what if in America we suddenly get a wave of religious fervor and then the majority decides that bringing about laws based on religion is moral? Is that acceptable to you?

Idk you tell me, the burden of proof is on you. You’re just throwing the term “secular law” without listing laws and without explaining who these more intelligent and more moral people are that created these laws. Also while secularism sort of rose when Humanism came about, they certainly didn’t create laws that favored women and gays. Also many humanists didn’t necessarily reject religion. The only secularization they really did was in art (at the time) and in the way they look at history, de-emphasizing ‘miracles’ and the likes while looking for more political/economical/social(etc.etc.) reasons when they looked at history. They didn’t reject religion for being ‘immoral’ or ‘illogical’, they just recognized that people do things for other reasons besides religion.


I cannot see the U.S. citizenry being that stupid and immoral but acceptable to me or not, it would be the law of the land.

Secular, as far as I know, was a term that came before humanism, but I do not care one way or another. They did make the laws that ended the full homophobia and misogyny that was around before the new secular or humanist laws brought Christianity to heel.

That was in spite of religion. How far back do you want me to go in time? Try this.

They recognized the immorality of theistic laws and that is why they changed what the state and secular law would allow.


Yeah I was just saying that it became more prevalent then.

W.H.E.R.E.S. T.H.E. P.R.O.O.F. I’m taking AP European History right now. We already went over humanism and what they did. I can’t seem to recall misogyny and homophobia suddenly plummeting? I even remember that girls were not allowed in virtually all humanists schooling. Soooo. Also the dark ages? Hell even the romans were misogynistic (maybe not as homophobic, but towards the end they were). You can’t just keep saying stuff like that without any actual proof.

Many christians today denounce much of the Old Testament (if not all of it) first of all. 2nd of all this goes to a point I made earlier, christianity today has many denominations and interpretations. There are many christians who are okay with homosexuality, transgenderism, ofc women equality. You’re just projecting your personal view of religion onto everyone else, and if the religious people aren’t allowed to do that then why are you?


It did not. But lashing out against gays became illegal.

“LGBT rights first came to prominence following the decriminalisation of sexual activity between men, in 1967 in England”

Hogwash. They would have to denounce Yahweh and that would denigrate the stupid Trinity concept and leave Jesus hanging out to dry without Godhood. They would also have to explain why Jesus quoted the O.T. Christianity is based on the old Jewish works which are the O.T. To ignore it means ignoring the roots of Christianity.

Yep. Christianity is a real dogs breakfast. They cannot decide what to believe.

They are, hence the plethora of sects.

The only things they almost all share is their notions of a scapegoat Jesus and their penchant to abdicate their responsibilities for their own sins. Not a good thing that.

  1. Humanism was really during like the renaissance, so you can’t really claim secular humanists for that. Also while that isn’t religious law, I’m pretty sure that most of the people in Parliament at the time were religious. Just because it was decriminalized doesn’t mean it was approved of.
  1. Christians can disregard the Old Testament because belief is a personal thing. We agreed morality is subjective yes? So one can believe in the christian god, but not follow every word of the bible(or any word, in which case they become deists), because since humans wrote it, its open to human corruption.
  2. Why do they all have to follow one set of beliefs?
  3. I mean, not really. Might they think everyone else is going to hell if they aren’t part of their denomination? Yes, some might. But they go by their beliefs. You’re acting as if all christians(and all supernatural believing people in general from how you’ve been acting) all believe the same stuff, which they obviously don’t. For example, Calvinists preach predestination, Catholics say that you have to repent for your sins by doing good deeds and waiting in purgatory for however long needed. And not all religious people believe in jesus. When I say religious people I mean all religious people, of all religions. Not just christians. Honestly this debate has become more convoluted than it needed to be. Not all supernatural believing people are stupid. That’s it. That should have been the end. I think that should be easily recognizable, but ig when you have some obsession with something you hate, it’s hard to think objectively.


If one is not to buy into the Christian ideology, then he or she should not call themselves Christian.

To believe in the supernatural, without any kind of evidence or proof, is stupid.

If belief in Thor or any of the other mythical Gods is stupid.


You keep dishing out those personal attacks, I won’t stoop to that level.

Nonsense. Christianity has been debating and reforming itself since its inception. And if you cannot believe in the supernatural, stop putting the word “Christian” in your description. There is nothing Christian about your beliefs.

The Lord corrects. Last time I checked, you were not God.

Do you even understand the application of this verse? It is used to root out heresies such as your own…