If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Christians called "intolerant" by some stupid atheist who is going to burn in hell when he gets there   (theherald.co.uk) divider line 678
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

14365 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Mar 2009 at 2:20 AM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



678 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-03-25 10:18:48 AM
Zamboro: Deuce McStinkle: "Are you done stereotyping yet?"

Ah, but which of those things don't you believe?


Are you done stereotyping yet?

I'm waiting . . .
 
2009-03-25 10:20:08 AM
Deuce McStinkle: Nothing Sweeter Than Redneck Tears: Deuce McStinkle: Nothing Sweeter Than Redneck Tears: atleast he never told anyone that he was the son of god.

Oooohhh... you hurt me there.

Really? That's the best you can do?

Sad, really.

The whole Hitler was a Christian argument has been debunked by not only religious scholars, but secular scholars as well.

A library is a big building with books: check it out sometime.

so you're saying that athiests, muslims, buddhists, jews, but not christians were sent to the gas chambers for some other reason yet to be discovered?

i dont know about the hole where you come from, but here in germany, the fact that hitler was a christian and in bed with the church is basic grade school knowledge.

So, you guys don't have libraries, then?


noone knows germany quite as well as some hick from bumf|_|ck georgia.
 
2009-03-25 10:20:37 AM
Deuce McStinkle: Nothing Sweeter Than Redneck Tears: atleast he never told anyone that he was the son of god.

Oooohhh... you hurt me there.

Really? That's the best you can do?

Sad, really.

The whole Hitler was a Christian argument has been debunked by not only religious scholars, but secular scholars as well.

A library is a big building with books: check it out sometime.


It really doesn't matter what Adolph believed. It's that he, like so many others, used religion to accumulate power. Wrapping yourself in the bible to sucker the believers is a very old practice.
Just look at every TV evangelist, or mega-church preacher. Tons of influence and money to match, all from duping the gullible.
 
2009-03-25 10:20:49 AM
maddogdelta: Deuce McStinkle: Please . . . I doubt it. Prove your point, bub, or stop whining.

I'm not whining at all. I'm merely just addressing a fallacy in which you claimed that atheists don't read the bible. I'm pointing out that you are incorrect.

eharac: Interestingly enough, neither Jesus nor Peter, Paul, etc are recorded as telling Christians to go into battle for religious reasons


Matthew 10:34 (King James Version)

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.


Once again, you display absolutely NO knowledge of how to read. Christ is talking figuratively here. Read the entire Gospel, mon frere, before you shoot off your mouth.

And don't give me that, "Well, you pick and choose when Christ is speaking metaphorically or literally" garbage. If you read carefully, the difference is patently obvious.

Grow up. Argue with integrity. Or go home.
 
2009-03-25 10:21:30 AM
Deuce McStinkle: Zamboro: Deuce McStinkle: "Are you done stereotyping yet?"

Ah, but which of those things don't you believe?

Are you done stereotyping yet?

I'm waiting . . .


Ahhh..The old "I know you are but what am I?" argument.

Might as well give up guys. This is one tough nut to crack.
 
2009-03-25 10:22:24 AM
theinsultabot9000: maybe you are for it because you think its just America. she should have her freedom of choice. ok, i can see that, land of the free, sound reasoning. you have a point. but if your argument is i or anyone else should give two shiats about a group of woman whose soul common link is that they were to incompetent to avoid pregnancy and to stupid to decide that of all her options, gutting herself with a coat hanger, thus eliminating not one but two genetic failures. i just don't see the point. in my opinion that is actually a valid point on the side of pro-lifers, that there stance indirectly benefits the genetic health of humanity

What valid point?
 
2009-03-25 10:22:26 AM
give me doughnuts: Deuce McStinkle: Nothing Sweeter Than Redneck Tears: atleast he never told anyone that he was the son of god.

Oooohhh... you hurt me there.

Really? That's the best you can do?

Sad, really.

The whole Hitler was a Christian argument has been debunked by not only religious scholars, but secular scholars as well.

A library is a big building with books: check it out sometime.

It really doesn't matter what Adolph believed. It's that he, like so many others, used religion to accumulate power. Wrapping yourself in the bible to sucker the believers is a very old practice.
Just look at every TV evangelist, or mega-church preacher. Tons of influence and money to match, all from duping the gullible.


Yes, because televangelists are absolutely representative of all Christian sects.
 
2009-03-25 10:24:19 AM
Deuce McStinkle: Once again, you display absolutely NO knowledge of how to read. Christ is talking figuratively here. Read the entire Gospel, mon frere, before you shoot off your mouth.

I have. Several times.


And don't give me that, "Well, you pick and choose when Christ is speaking metaphorically or literally" garbage. If you read carefully, the difference is patently obvious.

If the difference is patently obvious, then why do people spend so much energy killing each other over it? Are people saved by faith or works? (Let's start with Martin Luther vs Catholicism, then we'll work our way into Calvinism, etc..)

Grow up. Argue with integrity. Or go home.

I have demonstrated my integrity more often than I will guess you have. But go ahead. Keep making claims with no facts to back them up. It's what you seem to be good at.
 
2009-03-25 10:25:27 AM
maddogdelta: Ahhh..The old "I know you are but what am I?" argument.

Might as well give up guys. This is one tough nut to crack.


It's hard to argue with someone who insists nothing you say is relevant.
 
2009-03-25 10:26:49 AM
Deuce McStinkle: give me doughnuts: Deuce McStinkle: Nothing Sweeter Than Redneck Tears: atleast he never told anyone that he was the son of god.

Oooohhh... you hurt me there.

Really? That's the best you can do?

Sad, really.

The whole Hitler was a Christian argument has been debunked by not only religious scholars, but secular scholars as well.

A library is a big building with books: check it out sometime.

It really doesn't matter what Adolph believed. It's that he, like so many others, used religion to accumulate power. Wrapping yourself in the bible to sucker the believers is a very old practice.
Just look at every TV evangelist, or mega-church preacher. Tons of influence and money to match, all from duping the gullible.

Yes, because televangelists are absolutely representative of all Christian sects.


Just the successful ones. Look at how much property and political infuence the Catholic Church has. And how much more it used to have.
All gotten from people foolish enough to believe mythology and fairy-tales.
 
2009-03-25 10:27:39 AM
Yet she increased her whorings, remembering the days of her youth, when she played the whore in the land of Egypt and lusted after her paramours there, whose members were like those of donkeys, and whose emission was like that of stallions.

*fap*
 
2009-03-25 10:28:24 AM
Deuce McStinkle: Wheeee! Look at me! I know nothing about religion, yet I feel the need to shoot off my mouth, paint with a broad brush, and stereotype all Christians.

Wheeeee!!! I've never even read the Bible! I wouldn't know an epistle from a psalm, yet I'm qualified to dismiss all forms of Christianity!

Wheeee!! Look at me! I've got internet access, so I have earned the right to speak on subjects about which I have absolutely no knowledge!

Wheee!! Look at me! I learned everything that I know about Christianity from an intro to philosophy course at my junior college and from those highly-regarded geniuses at the 4chan message boards!

Wheeeee!!!!


Haha. I was raised in a nunnery, went to Catholic school, church every week, CCD classes, then tent revivals, Youth Group. Guess what I never believed in? I spent a lot of time studying religions in addition to this, on the basis that I felt I should be knowledgeable to discuss things with Christians until I learned two things.

1) Most Christians won't discuss shiat.
2) I was wasting time learning about something that is completely pointless, and has no place in my life in an effort to placate some idiots who worship a book. I feel the same way about Twilight fans.
 
2009-03-25 10:28:41 AM
Nothing Sweeter Than Redneck Tears: Yet she increased her whorings, remembering the days of her youth, when she played the whore in the land of Egypt and lusted after her paramours there, whose members were like those of donkeys, and whose emission was like that of stallions.

*fap*


Wasn't Jenna Jameson in that one?
 
2009-03-25 10:32:34 AM
Deuce McStinkle: "Are you done stereotyping yet?

I'm waiting . . ."


I invited you to tell me which of the things I said about you are untrue. If indeed I am stereotyping you, explain how.
 
2009-03-25 10:33:17 AM
give me doughnuts: theinsultabot9000: maybe you are for it because you think its just America. she should have her freedom of choice. ok, i can see that, land of the free, sound reasoning. you have a point. but if your argument is i or anyone else should give two shiats about a group of woman whose soul common link is that they were to incompetent to avoid pregnancy and to stupid to decide that of all her options, gutting herself with a coat hanger, thus eliminating not one but two genetic failures. i just don't see the point. in my opinion that is actually a valid point on the side of pro-lifers, that there stance indirectly benefits the genetic health of humanity

What valid point?


a main talking point of pro-choice people is that many woman will still have abortions, it will just be far more dangerous, because instead of practiced and sterilized equipment it will be back alley med school rejects using coat hangers, when problems inevitably develop, the woman and the child to be both die.

currently, an abortion is relatively safe for the woman, so right now any woman having an abortion is by nature farking retarded, she is underoing a simple procedure. but if pro-lifers wanted to make the point that any woman who went to the back alleyway and got herself killed, we are talking about not only the removal of both the grossly incompetent and/or stupid, but one who has already proven herself fertile. thats darwinism, and a valid point on the side of any who wished to see abortion outlawed
 
2009-03-25 10:35:17 AM
EL_FABREZ: TheWarmonger: ///BTW, get some new pictures, I'm tired of seeing the same ones every single time

There you go. A nice pic of white Jesus being all majestic and stuff.


He's the 4th horseman?
 
2009-03-25 10:37:25 AM
theinsultabot9000: give me doughnuts: theinsultabot9000: maybe you are for it because you think its just America. she should have her freedom of choice. ok, i can see that, land of the free, sound reasoning. you have a point. but if your argument is i or anyone else should give two shiats about a group of woman whose soul common link is that they were to incompetent to avoid pregnancy and to stupid to decide that of all her options, gutting herself with a coat hanger, thus eliminating not one but two genetic failures. i just don't see the point. in my opinion that is actually a valid point on the side of pro-lifers, that there stance indirectly benefits the genetic health of humanity

What valid point?

a main talking point of pro-choice people is that many woman will still have abortions, it will just be far more dangerous, because instead of practiced and sterilized equipment it will be back alley med school rejects using coat hangers, when problems inevitably develop, the woman and the child to be both die.

currently, an abortion is relatively safe for the woman, so right now any woman having an abortion is by nature farking retarded, she is underoing a simple procedure. but if pro-lifers wanted to make the point that any woman who went to the back alleyway and got herself killed, we are talking about not only the removal of both the grossly incompetent and/or stupid, but one who has already proven herself fertile. thats darwinism, and a valid point on the side of any who wished to see abortion outlawed



i am sorry, currently, a woman getting an abortion is NOT by nature retarded. haven't had my coffee yet. missing that word there made that whole paragraph farking retarded, irony
 
2009-03-25 10:37:55 AM
thespindrifter: DemonEater: the lives of the two living, breathing, thinking adults who don't want a baby?

Were they thinking when they had sex? before then? If they were thinking adults they should have thought about the consequences before the fact; a child shouldn't have to pay the price for the "parents" stupidity. There are so many people out there who are willing to adopt, and yet we make them wait in line for month to years. (I don't mind the background checks, but I know of some who have been waiting for years.)

The only difference in the law between a legal abortion or manslaughter of a killed pre-born infant is whether or not the child was "wanted". That is schizophrenia of the law, and it needs to end one way or the other.

Even if there were no God, we are apparently unique in this part of the galaxy, and even if the galaxy were over-flowing with evolved life, we would still be unique, and every individual potential life should be protected and supported by someone, if not by the biological parents. Either human life is sacred or it isn't; the development stage is irrelevant.

I'd be pro life even if I were still an agnostic, because I believe that all intelligent life is worth protecting, and all lesser life is worth protecting up to the point where such protections would interfere with the continued protection of humans. I do not consider a fetus a lesser life form, just an undeveloped potential human. Anything less than that greys an area that opens up a Pandora's box of troubles that devalues human life by degrees, and history shows what happens to societies that devalue human life: they fall, and rightfully so.



I applaud your love of life, but it is not nearly as unique or special as you seem to want to believe. Yes, an individual can be special and hold value, but that is subjective to those who see value in that person. There are 6,760,000,000 people on this planet. If you just take the top 1% of the humanity with an IQ above 135 it is 67,600,000 people - nearly the population of Texas, California and New York combined. On the other end of that spectrum, there are just as many people at the very bottom of that IQ chart, below 60.

In regards to abortion, here is another fun fact. Humans naturally miscarry upwards of 50% of all conceptions.

In 2008 alone there were roughly 136,000,000 births world wide. Tsis also means at most 136,000,000 "children" are aborted each year by natural causes.
 
2009-03-25 10:38:16 AM
z.about.com
 
2009-03-25 10:40:01 AM
theinsultabot9000:

a main talking point of pro-choice people is that many woman will still have abortions, it will just be far more dangerous, because instead of practiced and sterilized equipment it will be back alley med school rejects using coat hangers, when problems inevitably develop, the woman and the child to be both die.

currently, an abortion is relatively safe for the woman, so right now any woman having an abortion is by nature farking retarded, she is underoing a simple procedure. but if pro-lifers wanted to make the point that any woman who went to the back alleyway and got herself killed, we are talking about not only the removal of both the grossly incompetent and/or stupid, but one who has already proven herself fertile. thats darwinism, and a valid point on the side of any who wished to see abortion outlawed

??????

I read that four times. Came out of it with nothing.
 
2009-03-25 10:44:54 AM

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?


Of course, you can always follow the deconstructionist view: If I deem this rock as having divinity, and divinity only truly matters to myself, then this rock is divine to the extent that I believe it to be. All of reality is perception, after all.
 
2009-03-25 10:45:22 AM
Herb Utsmelz: theinsultabot9000:

a main talking point of pro-choice people is that many woman will still have abortions, it will just be far more dangerous, because instead of practiced and sterilized equipment it will be back alley med school rejects using coat hangers, when problems inevitably develop, the woman and the child to be both die.

currently, an abortion is relatively safe for the woman, so right now any woman having an abortion is by nature farking retarded, she is underoing a simple procedure. but if pro-lifers wanted to make the point that any woman who went to the back alleyway and got herself killed, we are talking about not only the removal of both the grossly incompetent and/or stupid, but one who has already proven herself fertile. thats darwinism, and a valid point on the side of any who wished to see abortion outlawed

??????

I read that four times. Came out of it with nothing.



i noticed a minor word cut there which essentially invalidated the whole idea there, which i mentioned immediately after. paraphrasing, the original point was "currently there is no problem with the woman getting an abortion, because it is a safe and simple procedure."

except i left out the word "no" completely altering the idea. try it now
 
2009-03-25 10:45:27 AM
maddogdelta: Deuce McStinkle: Once again, you display absolutely NO knowledge of how to read. Christ is talking figuratively here. Read the entire Gospel, mon frere, before you shoot off your mouth.

I have. Several times.


And don't give me that, "Well, you pick and choose when Christ is speaking metaphorically or literally" garbage. If you read carefully, the difference is patently obvious.

If the difference is patently obvious, then why do people spend so much energy killing each other over it? Are people saved by faith or works? (Let's start with Martin Luther vs Catholicism, then we'll work our way into Calvinism, etc..)

Grow up. Argue with integrity. Or go home.

I have demonstrated my integrity more often than I will guess you have. But go ahead. Keep making claims with no facts to back them up. It's what you seem to be good at.


Sure, if you say so. You must be right. After all, you say you are.
 
2009-03-25 10:47:06 AM
Deuce McStinkle: Sure, if you say so. You must be right. After all, you say you are.

Another statement without any facts to back them up.

Continue, please.
 
2009-03-25 10:47:41 AM
Deuce McStinkle:

If you are a Christian, you necessarily believe in a genocider god. While Christians aren't beholden to the strictures of the Old Testament, it's still the same deity and it's still canonical. Yahweh explicitly commanded genocides against the Canaanites and several other peoples, going so far as to punish an Israelite leader who kept some of the livestock instead of killing them as well. (Although Moses was permitted to keep the young virginal girls in a few instances, if I recall correctly.)

You must necessarily believe in a garden of Eden, Adam and Eve, and so on. Original sin is inherited from Adam as a result of the Fall, when Adam and Eve were ejected from the garden for eating of the tree. Without the Fall, we did not inherit Adam's sin, and Christ died for nothing. Belief in the ejection from the garden is necessary for your theological worldview.

If you are a Christian, you must necessarily deny the findings of cognitive neurobiology, as they disprove the existence of the soul. In science, a claim is disproven when a theory comes along which is better supported by evidence and which has superior predictive power. This is why Germ theory is said to have disproven the competing explanation that evil spirits cause illness; it explains all of the observable facts, it's better supported by evidence, and it enabled us to predict the characteristics of microorganisms responsible for disease so that we might better combat them. Likewise, the materialist model of consciousness is supported by heaps of evidence and is the predictive basis of many treatments for localized brain damage and hereditary neurological disorders. In the scientific sense, the soul is disproven, although creationists are raising a stink over it as explained in one of the links above. You find yourself in the same camp as these creationists with regards to cognitive neurobiology because the existence of the soul is necessary for your theological worldview.

If you are a Christian, you also must necessarily deny evidence from particle physics research which indicates that the big bang was a natural, self-catalyzing event. You deny this because divine creation is necessary for your theological worldview.

Shall I go on?
 
2009-03-25 10:48:32 AM
Braindeath: Deuce McStinkle: Wheeee! Look at me! I know nothing about religion, yet I feel the need to shoot off my mouth, paint with a broad brush, and stereotype all Christians.

Wheeeee!!! I've never even read the Bible! I wouldn't know an epistle from a psalm, yet I'm qualified to dismiss all forms of Christianity!

Wheeee!! Look at me! I've got internet access, so I have earned the right to speak on subjects about which I have absolutely no knowledge!

Wheee!! Look at me! I learned everything that I know about Christianity from an intro to philosophy course at my junior college and from those highly-regarded geniuses at the 4chan message boards!

Wheeeee!!!!

Haha. I was raised in a nunnery, went to Catholic school, church every week, CCD classes, then tent revivals, Youth Group. Guess what I never believed in? I spent a lot of time studying religions in addition to this, on the basis that I felt I should be knowledgeable to discuss things with Christians until I learned two things.

1) Most Christians won't discuss shiat.
2) I was wasting time learning about something that is completely pointless, and has no place in my life in an effort to placate some idiots who worship a book. I feel the same way about Twilight fans.


Define "most" Christians? Without resorting to broad-stripe stereotyping, I doubt that you can. Tell me, for instance, what an Armenian is. Define covenant theology. Tell me in what ways Wesley disagreed with Luther. I doubt that you can.

You're right: you don't take Christians seriously, so why should they take you seriously?

You are just another angry adolescent shooting his mouth off on the internet.
 
2009-03-25 10:49:26 AM
maddogdelta: Deuce McStinkle: Sure, if you say so. You must be right. After all, you say you are.

Another statement without any facts to back them up.

Continue, please.


I could say the same thing. Keep it up; you're doing fine.
 
2009-03-25 10:50:26 AM
Words to live by...
"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." (Stephen F. Roberts)
 
2009-03-25 10:51:28 AM
Zamboro: Deuce McStinkle:

If you are a Christian, you necessarily believe in a genocider god. While Christians aren't beholden to the strictures of the Old Testament, it's still the same deity and it's still canonical. Yahweh explicitly commanded genocides against the Canaanites and several other peoples, going so far as to punish an Israelite leader who kept some of the livestock instead of killing them as well. (Although Moses was permitted to keep the young virginal girls in a few instances, if I recall correctly.)

You must necessarily believe in a garden of Eden, Adam and Eve, and so on. Original sin is inherited from Adam as a result of the Fall, when Adam and Eve were ejected from the garden for eating of the tree. Without the Fall, we did not inherit Adam's sin, and Christ died for nothing. Belief in the ejection from the garden is necessary for your theological worldview.

If you are a Christian, you must necessarily deny the findings of cognitive neurobiology, as they disprove the existence of the soul. In science, a claim is disproven when a theory comes along which is better supported by evidence and which has superior predictive power. This is why Germ theory is said to have disproven the competing explanation that evil spirits cause illness; it explains all of the observable facts, it's better supported by evidence, and it enabled us to predict the characteristics of microorganisms responsible for disease so that we might better combat them. Likewise, the materialist model of consciousness is supported by heaps of evidence and is the predictive basis of many treatments for localized brain damage and hereditary neurological disorders. In the scientific sense, the soul is disproven, although creationists are raising a stink over it as explained in one of the links above. You find yourself in the same camp as these creationists with regards to cognitive neurobiology because the existence of the soul is necessary for your theological worldview.

If you are a Christian, you also must necessarily deny evidence from particle physics research which indicates that the big bang was a natural, self-catalyzing event. You deny this because divine creation is necessary for your theological worldview.

Shall I go on?


Wow.

And you would probably say that Christians confuse science and religion.

I'm not interested in backing my claims with scientific fact. Religion and science are two different things. That's why public schools have no business teaching creationism in the classroom.

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding: science is the search for verifiable fact; religion is the search for transcendent truth.
 
2009-03-25 10:53:42 AM
cybrwzrd: In regards to abortion, here is another fun fact. Humans naturally miscarry upwards of 50% of all conceptions.

In 2008 alone there were roughly 136,000,000 births world wide. Tsis also means at most 136,000,000 "children" are aborted each year by natural causes.


Sometimes adults die too, so we should just make it legal to kill them if you want.

/ There's a difference between accidents and murder.
 
2009-03-25 10:53:47 AM
The Name: It's precisely because of books like Leviticus that I laugh at people who try to pwn Christians by quoting the Old Testament.

Oh, I seem to have missed a memo... When exactly did Christians stop citing Leviticus to prop up the oppression of homosexuals?

You do realize that this is why non-Christians bring it up, right? Because "a la carte" Leviticus is still relevant to a disturbing number of Christians.

But I guess you'll say that they aren't "true" Christians, or some such nonsense.

Some Christians are well aware of the "intolerance" (as we moderns would call it) and heavy-handedness of the Old Testament.

FTFY. Others would like to throw out the Constitution and replace it with Mosaic law.
 
2009-03-25 10:56:04 AM
Deuce McStinkle: I could say the same thing. Keep it up; you're doing fine.

Might I again point out that your first claim was that atheists don't read or have never read the bible? I pointed out that your statement was in error, as I have read the bible. I can also direct you to many atheists who have read the bible, and some who are even regarded as scholastic experts on the bible.

Where did I make the claim of inerrancy? Who am I, the Pope?
 
2009-03-25 10:56:38 AM
quisph: Others would like to throw out the Constitution and replace it with Mosaic law.

My God. What a bad idea. Who in the world would want to do such a thing. Not me, and not any Christian I know.
 
2009-03-25 10:59:57 AM
maddogdelta: Deuce McStinkle: I could say the same thing. Keep it up; you're doing fine.

Might I again point out that your first claim was that atheists don't read or have never read the bible? I pointed out that your statement was in error, as I have read the bible. I can also direct you to many atheists who have read the bible, and some who are even regarded as scholastic experts on the bible.

Where did I make the claim of inerrancy? Who am I, the Pope?


I wouldn't know anything about the Pope; I'm Protestant.

You've still not indicated that you're familiar with the Bible. I'm waiting for you to show me that you have some kind of reading sensitivity to the differences among the literary genres in the Bible. Explain to me the difference between an epistle and a psalm. Tell me who wrote Hebrews. Tell me what genre Leviticus is. Tell me who the original audience of Deuteronomy was. Tell me the historical background of the prophet Hosea.

I doubt that you can, but I'll wait while you hit Wikipedia.
 
2009-03-25 11:05:31 AM
serial_crusher: cybrwzrd: In regards to abortion, here is another fun fact. Humans naturally miscarry upwards of 50% of all conceptions.

In 2008 alone there were roughly 136,000,000 births world wide. Tsis also means at most 136,000,000 "children" are aborted each year by natural causes.

Sometimes adults die too, so we should just make it legal to kill them if you want.

/ There's a difference between accidents and murder.


An adult also posseses self conciouness, an embryo or fetus does not.

That Cow/Pig/Fish/Chicken you will eat at lunch today has a higher degree of life than a fetus.
 
2009-03-25 11:06:04 AM
Deuce McStinkle: "Wow.

And you would probably say that Christians confuse science and religion."


In what sense?

Deuce McStinkle: "I'm not interested in backing my claims with scientific fact. Religion and science are two different things. That's why public schools have no business teaching creationism in the classroom."

They have no business teaching creationism because it's been soundly disproven, as is the supernatural explanation for consciousness. It's a great example of religion making claims about reality, and being hilariously wrong. In fact that seems to be a bit of a historical pattern.

Deuce McStinkle: " seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding: science is the search for verifiable fact"

Any time religion speaks of reality, it treads into the domain of science.

Deuce McStinkle: "Religion is the search for transcendent truth."

How's that going, by the way? Turned up any transcendant truths in the past few millenia?

I might point out that I did not speak only of science. I pointed out a very plain theological issue in my first paragraph which you have not addressed. In fact, you've not addressed any of it.


Are you, or are you not a Christian?

Do you or do you not believe in souls?

Do you or do you not believe God created the universe?

Did God command genocides in the Bible, or did he not?


If you are a Christian, if you believe in souls, if you believe God created the universe and if I'm correct that the God you worship commanded genocides, then everything I've said is correct, and all you've done is evade the implications.
 
2009-03-25 11:08:42 AM
If you are a Christian you are a delusional fool with daddy issues.

No amount of WHAAARRRGARBLE is going to change that.

/you have wasted your life on an illusion.
 
2009-03-25 11:08:58 AM
Deuce McStinkle: "My God. What a bad idea. Who in the world would want to do such a thing. Not me, and not any Christian I know."

Apparently enough of them think it's a good idea that this guy nearly made the nomination:

i63.photobucket.com

And this woman came close to being the president of the United States:

i63.photobucket.com
 
2009-03-25 11:09:50 AM
Deuce McStinkle: Explain to me the difference between an epistle and a psalm.

You mean the difference between a letter and a prayer?

Tell me who wrote Hebrews

Since it wasn't signed, we don't really know, do we..

However, I never claimed that I was a religious scholar. I was countering your claim that atheists have never read the bible. When I demonstrated familiarity, you then moved the goalposts so that for me to demonstrate expertise to your satisfaction, not only do I have to have read the bible, but now I need Bart Ehrman's level of knowledge.

Moving the goalposts is a common theist argument tactic.

I doubt that you can, but I'll wait while you hit Wikipedia.

Since I never claimed that level of expertise, I don't see how this is relevant.

Or does someone need to have a phd in Theology before they understand enough about Christianity in order to become a Christian?
 
2009-03-25 11:10:41 AM
Deuce McStinkle: maddogdelta: Deuce McStinkle: I could say the same thing. Keep it up; you're doing fine.

Might I again point out that your first claim was that atheists don't read or have never read the bible? I pointed out that your statement was in error, as I have read the bible. I can also direct you to many atheists who have read the bible, and some who are even regarded as scholastic experts on the bible.

Where did I make the claim of inerrancy? Who am I, the Pope?

I wouldn't know anything about the Pope; I'm Protestant.

You've still not indicated that you're familiar with the Bible. I'm waiting for you to show me that you have some kind of reading sensitivity to the differences among the literary genres in the Bible. Explain to me the difference between an epistle and a psalm. Tell me who wrote Hebrews. Tell me what genre Leviticus is. Tell me who the original audience of Deuteronomy was. Tell me the historical background of the prophet Hosea.

I doubt that you can, but I'll wait while you hit Wikipedia.


I never read Mein Kampf but I know Hitler was crazy. Just because we aren't experts on your little book of fairy tales doesn't mean that we are unqualified to call you an idiot.
 
2009-03-25 11:11:09 AM
The Icelander: thespindrifter: Christ called for Peace and Love, to the Jew first and to the Gentile also; Hitler called for hate and murder. It isn't too hard to figure out that power politics, not Christianity, was the real motivating factor here, and usually is. It isn't "No real Scotsman", it's a fact. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... but if it moos? Hmmm, might be a different critter.

If that's the case, then most Christians aren't really Christians.

DING, DING, DING, DING. We have a winner.

Very rarely will you ever meet a "Christian" that actually follows the teachings of Christ, I think that these folks get caught up in being part of the mob and neglect to comprehend what it is that Christ was saying. They believe but they don't listen, They have faith but they refuse to understand.

I am also amused at how many Christians wanted to go to war in Iraq, that is some peaceful, "love thy neighbor" religion you got there, Lou.

The biggest downfall of Christianity will be the Christians themselves...
 
2009-03-25 11:12:07 AM
All beliefs are intolerant of all other beliefs.

Until you really understand what they're on about, criticism from the outside is pointless.

Atheists strike me as negative people: they know what they don't want because they don't know what they want.
 
2009-03-25 11:17:15 AM
Zamboro: Deuce McStinkle: "Wow.

And you would probably say that Christians confuse science and religion."

In what sense?

Deuce McStinkle: "I'm not interested in backing my claims with scientific fact. Religion and science are two different things. That's why public schools have no business teaching creationism in the classroom."

They have no business teaching creationism because it's been soundly disproven, as is the supernatural explanation for consciousness. It's a great example of religion making claims about reality, and being hilariously wrong. In fact that seems to be a bit of a historical pattern.

Deuce McStinkle: " seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding: science is the search for verifiable fact"

Any time religion speaks of reality, it treads into the domain of science.

Deuce McStinkle: "Religion is the search for transcendent truth."

How's that going, by the way? Turned up any transcendant truths in the past few millenia?

I might point out that I did not speak only of science. I pointed out a very plain theological issue in my first paragraph which you have not addressed. In fact, you've not addressed any of it.


Are you, or are you not a Christian?

Do you or do you not believe in souls?

Do you or do you not believe God created the universe?

Did God command genocides in the Bible, or did he not?


If you are a Christian, if you believe in souls, if you believe God created the universe and if I'm correct that the God you worship commanded genocides, then everything I've said is correct, and all you've done is evade the implications.


1. One doesn't have to believe in a literal seven-day creation period to believe in original sin. That's your assumption.

2. I'm not sure what "genocide" you're addressing. Please be specific.

3. Of course, I'm a Christian. But I also voted for Obama; I don't think that creationism belongs in public schools; I support homosexual civil unions; and I think that a good majority of so-called Christian today engender people like you: those who think that a small sect of a religion represent all of it.

4. Slice it how you wish, my friend. You seem to be convinced in your moral righteousness.
 
2009-03-25 11:18:52 AM
Conservationist: "Atheists strike me as negative people: they know what they don't want because they don't know what they want."

Read up on the history of the Freethought movement. Of course we don't all want exactly the same things, because we're a bunch of people connected only by our lack of theism, but there are a few shared interests, such as preserving the secular character of our government and advancing secular enlightenment ideals like freedom of thought.

Beyond that, it isn't really meaningful to ask what atheists believe, but rather what an individual atheist believes. Would you know what I, personally, stand for?
 
2009-03-25 11:19:31 AM
mloree:

I never read Mein Kampf but I know Hitler was crazy. Just because we aren't experts on your little book of fairy tales doesn't mean that we are unqualified to call you an idiot.


Actually, that is exactly what makes you unqualified.

If I posted what a grand guy Hitler was and what a great person he was, you'd tell me to read Mein Kampf, no? Just so I could see the truth?

You've not read scripture; you have no understanding of it. You're not angry at Christianity. You are angry at the small section of Christians to which you've been exposed.
 
2009-03-25 11:23:15 AM
My parents never took me to church and I never learned anything in the Bible until I was forced to read some of it in Lit class in college. It freaking pissed me off so bad, especially the whole hating women and minorities thing! Although late in life, I realized then that the Bible was just a tool used to control people and is reinterpreted over and and over again to fit someone's goals...just like the US Constitution. They can do whatever they want by using their made up God and/or their made up laws. There are better ways to get people to treat each other with respect, but most of the powerful people of the past and future aren't so interested in that. Let's just start over from the beginning and try this humanity thing again.
 
2009-03-25 11:23:26 AM
maddogdelta: Deuce McStinkle: Explain to me the difference between an epistle and a psalm.

You mean the difference between a letter and a prayer?

Tell me who wrote Hebrews

Since it wasn't signed, we don't really know, do we..

However, I never claimed that I was a religious scholar. I was countering your claim that atheists have never read the bible. When I demonstrated familiarity, you then moved the goalposts so that for me to demonstrate expertise to your satisfaction, not only do I have to have read the bible, but now I need Bart Ehrman's level of knowledge.

Moving the goalposts is a common theist argument tactic.

I doubt that you can, but I'll wait while you hit Wikipedia.

Since I never claimed that level of expertise, I don't see how this is relevant.

Or does someone need to have a phd in Theology before they understand enough about Christianity in order to become a Christian?


Wow. You really missed the point, didn't you?

It's relevant, my friend, because you are attacking the Bible. If I started shooting my mouth off about science, you'd hit me with all of your cut-and-paste facts from the internet and claim that I don't know enough to argue.

I know that this may be hard for you to swallow, but all Christians aren't stupid. A large number of us reject neoconservative thought. A large number of us reject the co-opting of our religion by those with political aims.

I'm not "Moving the Goalposts" (what book did you get that one from?) I'm dealing with the issues.

Now, I'm certain that you're going to accuse me of some other "theist" stunt, so I'll wait.
 
2009-03-25 11:25:00 AM
Zamboro: Deuce McStinkle: "My God. What a bad idea. Who in the world would want to do such a thing. Not me, and not any Christian I know."

Apparently enough of them think it's a good idea that this guy nearly made the nomination: Mike Huckabee



And this woman came close to being the president of the United States: Sarah Palin


What's your point? I supported neither of them.
 
2009-03-25 11:26:02 AM
Deuce McStinkle: 2. I'm not sure what "genocide" you're addressing. Please be specific.

And you claim to have read the bible?
I'll give you 2 examples, the Amalekites
1 Samuel 15:2-3 (New International Version)

2 This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy [a] everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.' "

And the Mindinites
Numbers 31:7-40 (King James Version)

7And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males.

8And they slew the kings of Midian, beside the rest of them that were slain; namely, Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, five kings of Midian: Balaam also the son of Beor they slew with the sword.

9And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods.

10And they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their goodly castles, with fire.

11And they took all the spoil, and all the prey, both of men and of beasts.

12And they brought the captives, and the prey, and the spoil, unto Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and unto the congregation of the children of Israel, unto the camp at the plains of Moab, which are by Jordan near Jericho.

13And Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the princes of the congregation, went forth to meet them without the camp.

14And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle.

15And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?

16Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.

17Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

18But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
 
2009-03-25 11:26:12 AM
mloree: Deuce McStinkle: maddogdelta: Deuce McStinkle: I could say the same thing. Keep it up; you're doing fine.

Might I again point out that your first claim was that atheists don't read or have never read the bible? I pointed out that your statement was in error, as I have read the bible. I can also direct you to many atheists who have read the bible, and some who are even regarded as scholastic experts on the bible.

Where did I make the claim of inerrancy? Who am I, the Pope?

I wouldn't know anything about the Pope; I'm Protestant.

You've still not indicated that you're familiar with the Bible. I'm waiting for you to show me that you have some kind of reading sensitivity to the differences among the literary genres in the Bible. Explain to me the difference between an epistle and a psalm. Tell me who wrote Hebrews. Tell me what genre Leviticus is. Tell me who the original audience of Deuteronomy was. Tell me the historical background of the prophet Hosea.

I doubt that you can, but I'll wait while you hit Wikipedia.

I never read Mein Kampf but I know Hitler was crazy. Just because we aren't experts on your little book of fairy tales doesn't mean that we are unqualified to call you an idiot.


Awesome Godwin.
 
Displayed 50 of 678 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report