Comment by edwardbernays

It's cool that you saw it less as hyperbole and "more of a pedestrian inability to make a real case." I suppose it does take one to recognize one, your game is pretty similar to this description.

It is not passive aggression. It is active aggression. We are seeing the plague of intellectual dishonesty spread in our civilization. It is making things materially worse for people who are currently alive. We should be actively hostile against it. Anybody who's reading this, I encourage you to take up polemics against the Christian faith. Read Peter Boghossian's "A Manual For Creating Atheists."

I have arguments against the complete legalization of drugs. I think there are many valid, good, principled arguments against it. Absolutely nowhere did I raise the idea "that no one can possibly make a credible argument against complete legalization of drugs." Nowhere did I even advocate for the "complete legalization of drugs."

I did not advocate for these things because I do not believe in them as policy positions. I have not, in fact, positively claimed what policies I would like to see enacted. I have criticized the current state of affairs and stated the principles by which I'd like to see them reformed.

You are jumping to conclusions that are not substantively supported by the text you read, probably as a form of prejudice or emotional response to seeing a "reasonable religion" maligned.

I outright reject every moralistic argument from the basis of Yahweh, a deity whose holy book contains self-contradicting inconsistencies, historical inaccuracies, scientific inaccuracies, and moral tragedies. Cry about it. Absolutely no deity which has commanded the sexual assault of innocent women, nor condoned chattel slavery, should ever be considered a source of moral truth. The Yahweh of the old testament is a vindictive, cruel, evil old spirit. The Yahweh of the new testament is, at best, a literary invention of Greek novelists and the charlatan Jesus of Nazareth. Did Jesus say some cool things and have some wisdom? I'd say so. Was he a scholar of the Bible? Probably. Was he the Messiah? Factually, by the messianic prophecies laid out in the old testament, the answer is a resounding "no." Any religion which both claims a text of messianic prophecy and a Messiah which fulfilled zero of those prophecies can not be considered a coherent religion, let alone a reasonable one.

Furthermore, Yahweh is 100% a Sky Daddy. His believers literally call him the holy father. The only way it even makes sense to object to the term "Sky Daddy" is because of the obvious infantilization. However, the infantilization is not my invention; merely my emphasis.

Doesn't this site say you should assume good faith? Maybe you don't know what kind of site it is, "adult."

EDIT: actually, the fact you thought calling Protestants "Bronze Age" was passive instead of active aggression does make me legitimately concerned for your social comprehension skills.

Another thing that makes me worried about your social comprehension skills is that you saw me say "your ability to believe in Sky Daddy ends where it impinges on my freedoms" and immediately jumped to "so you think all drugs should be legal??" I'm pretty sure, at this point, I'm speaking to a dyed-in-the-wool, drank-the-kool-aid, brain-is-fully-rotted theist.

So let me say this really plainly, in easy words, to make sure you can grasp it without ambiguity: you can make arguments against drugs without invoking spirits. You can make moral arguments without invoking spirits.

I do it quite often.

EDIT2: I am fine with people who call themselves Christians. I am not ok with Christian nationalism. I do not want the Christian faith eradicated, but I do want them to stop meddling in politics.