Anyone Raised by a strict Fundamentalist family?

[Imperial Overlord]

[

True and sometimes they are bad moral codes. My point is you can't just say oh those moral codes weren't made my true atheists. To show why that is important let us say hypothetically that we end up with 20 nations founded on Atheism that's populations are total de-religioned. 19 of them become Hell Holes. At what point can we say it's because of Atheism?

You can't found a nation on Atheism. Its not a legal or moral code, a philosophy, or a system of government. I know you're a moron, but this isn't difficult.

The Crusades where a series of defensive wars.

Name one and explain how it was defensive, you lying ignorant piece of shit. Sacking Constantinople? Invading Muslim held Egypt? Sacking Muslim held Jerusalem? How were any of these actions by Frenchmen defensive when their nation was not under attack?

The Holy Inquisition was a move to purge Spain of traitors trying to infultrate the Church.

A lie. The Inquisition in Spain was the Spanish Inquisition, for starters and it targeted Jewish and Muslim converts, not churchmen. Since you've asserted that it was aimed at traitors infiltrating the church, it should easy to find a huge list of clergy that were victims, ones that dwarfs other victims if your claims are true. I'm sure you can quote some impressively scholarly works to defend this contention. Or maybe not since they don't exist.

An how about the fact the Catholic Church basically BUILT Western Civilization? Our Schools, Our Hospitals and the fact it's the worlds largest and possibly oldest charity organizations on the planet?

Bullshit. The Catholic Church survived the ruin of the Roman Empire and opposed almost every modern principle of government, social organization, and science. We built modern civilization over the Church's objections. It's proven quite adept at enriching itself.

An Atheist refuse to believe the Catholic Church is bringing that under control and the problem is being well fixed. But then why give up a useful lever to use against the Church?

That would be the Church that is blaming America for the fact that its priests rape kids, fights condom use tooth and nail, tries to restrict medical research, and is virulently opposed to any form of family planning on an overcrowded planet.

I stand by what I said. You got some here wanting a caste system based on intelligence just read some of the posts.

And I despise the very idea of a caste-based society. Guess what? I'm an atheist. Go make your false analogies somewhere else where they are dumb enough to buy it.

[Alyrium Denryle]

So how many examples will it take till I can use Atheism? It is catching up for the past sins of the Church rather rapidly.

No. It really isnt. Or did my point fly in sublime arc right over your head?

Atheism is ONLY the lack of belief in gods. If you want to blame a non-religious ideology for an atrocity then pick one that is complete and actually extols its adherents to...do...stuff... What you are doing is like saying that the idea of conflict between social classes is responsible for soviet gulags, even though it is only a component of communism, and itself belongs to other less harmful idealogies.

Atheism by itself does nothing. It takes a coherent complete world view to have real consequences.

So can anyone on this board debate like an adult without having to result to Jr. High level name calling?

How about I stop insulting you when you start being intellectually honest.

The Crusades where a series of defensive wars. The Holy Inquisition was a move to purge Spain of traitors trying to infultrate the Church.

... So... 8 armies marching across europe, raping and murdering jews, and then marching on the holy land over a course of several centuries... was defensive? Despite the fact that they did not march into spain to start the reconquista early? Despite the fact that the muslims in the east were being held back by the Byzantines (who the crusaders also attacked)?

Go read a history book.

As for the Inquisition.. they burned witches (read... women) and Jews. Jews who were converted at sword point, who had the audacity to... maybe...be practicing jews. Go read a book. Hardly traitors.

The oppression of women and homosexuals was just horrible but is mostly in the past and is rapidly moving into the past.

That is funny... just funny. If you think I am not oppressed you should see the number of times I have been attacked, or the niggling little fact that I am not your legal equal in most of the civilized world, and the fact that in large portions of the world, for religious reasons, I can be executed.

Then there is the catholic church's want to dominate and control the reproductive choices of women, which is the surest way to keep them in the kitchen.

You sure do have a nice set of apologist blinders on.

Slavery, Manifest destiny and colonialism have more to do with capitalism than religion and you know it.

Justified by the idea that those who were genocided were nothing but godless savages, and the invasions were preceded by culture-destroying missionaries. Again. Go read a book

Such as?

Depends on the deontologist

An how about the fact the Catholic Church basically BUILT Western Civilization? Our Schools, Our Hospitals and the fact it's the worlds largest and possibly oldest charity organizations on the planet?

No. The romans built western civilization. The catholic church just kept it together, and did so through fear, oppression, and murder, and brought about the dark ages by burning the Great Library and murdering philosophers. In addition to actively stifling the enlightenment.

The school system was a product of the counter-reformation, which trained zealots who in the end caused the death of millions via the religiously motivated 30 years war. The catholic church actively collaborated with Hitler and Mousollini, and because it teaches against condom use is responsible for the death of tens of millions of people in africa due to AIDS.

An Atheist refuse to believe the Catholic Church is bringing that under control and the problem is being well fixed. But then why give up a useful lever to use against the Church?

Give me a break. Your current pope WROTE the old policy. The only reason you are doing anything about it now is because the church got caught. It has been a haven for the depraved since the beginning of the church. Power has always attracted predators. If it isnt monk-rapists frequenting church controlled "brothels" in the middle ages, it is pedophiles finding a nice safe place in the church... that is of course until the church gets caught sheltering them

Ummm no I consider there stuff to be awesome

Speaks volumes.

[Broomstick]

I actually have read the Bible - it's very clear that the purpose of women, both old and new testament, is to have babies and damn little if anything else.

Did you read about Deborah who was the Judge of the entire nation of Israel? How does that fit into your paradigm of women’s only purpose is to have babies?

One exception. One exception. Out of all the other women who are given away, kidnapped, raped, stolen, sold into slavery... Oh, yeah, that makes it alright.

How about Lot, wonderful Lot, blessed by god or whatever - paraphrased: "Here, rape my daughter but spare these two strange men I just took into my household. It's so much better you rape my daughters than these two." But hey, it's OK because they're angels... yeah, right

Did you read about the righteous woman running her own business in proverbs?
Pro 31:24 She maketh fine linen, and selleth [it]; and delivereth girdles unto the merchant.
Pro 31:25 Strength and honour [are] her clothing; and she shall rejoice in time to come.

And in Ancient Rome slaves could own property and money and buy their freedom if they were successful enough.. but they were still slaves.

As usual, you pick and choose verses to support whatever you wish and fail to take into account the overall document.

That's not healthy, either - marriage should be a partnership between equals, not a matter of one giving all and one getting all

You shouldn’t make that remark thinking that I was trying to describe the entire picture of marriage. I was just describing one half. The complete picture is the man putting his wife’s needs above his own and the wife doing the same for her husband. Each striving to fill the needs of eachother.

And how is THAT healthy? There is no balance there - if you don't take care of yourself you can't take care of anyone else. The whole mess is dysfunctional.

Yes, I think it is a hard sell. That's why christian men, like men of any other stripe, have a certain percentage who beat, rape, and otherwise abuse "their" women.

Are you making the assertion that Christian teachings cause a percentage of its followers to beat, rape, and abuse their women?

I continually hear from "good christians" that accepting salvation will make one a better person and inspire one to be Christ-like... yet christians commit crimes at the same rate as any other group. Therefore, I can only conclude your god is very weak, perhaps even powerless. Or maybe he simply doesn't exist.

And, oh yes, no more divorce. For any reason. Did I miss anything about the change from OT to NT?

I believe divorce can still be granted in circumstances of infidelity. I have to read up on that.

Go back and re-read - in cases of abuse married partners can separate but they can not marry anyone else until one of the two dies. That's not divorce, that's legal separation.

Historically, what usually happened is the woman was "granted" her separation but was essentially imprisoned in a convent for the rest of her life while the man was free to go elsewhere. Not to mention that historically it was female infidelity that was punished while male infidelity was pardoned, if not openly condoned.

What was that line about by the fruit of the trees you will now them...? Christianity's orchard has a shitload of rotten fruit.

[General Zod]

Nice little dodge there. But did I not just list fine moral systems that didn't come from a deity according to there creators? Did you not say I was incapable of believing that?

Excuse me you lying little cunt? Who's dodging here? I'm not the one who's trying to assign definitions to atheism that do not exist.

Glad to hear you don't. To reference where you find many that consider it a moral imperative to stamp out religion just look around this board for a few months.

You're equivocating atheism with moral imperatives to stamp out religion like the standard fundie fucktard. But this isn't surprising. Once again there is nothing inherently moral about atheism. No more than refusing to believe in Santa Clause.

True and sometimes they are bad moral codes. My point is you can't just say oh those moral codes weren't made my true atheists. To show why that is important let us say hypothetically that we end up with 20 nations founded on Atheism that's populations are total de-religioned. 19 of them become Hell Holes. At what point can we say it's because of Atheism?

Never, you blubbering vagina. Atheism is not something you can found anything on.

So how many examples will it take till I can use Atheism? It is catching up for the past sins of the Church rather rapidly.

Only because douchebags like yourself seem to equivocate a lack of belief with some kind of moral imperative.

So can anyone on this board debate like an adult without having to result to Jr. High level name calling?

Ohnoez the atheists are being mean! Wah, wahhh!

If you don't like it fuck off and go back to Raptureready.

The Crusades where a series of defensive wars. The Holy Inquisition was a move to purge Spain of traitors trying to infultrate the Church.

The oppression of women and homosexuals was just horrible but is mostly in the past and is rapidly moving into the past.

Slavery, Manifest destiny and colonialism have more to do with capitalism than religion and you know it.

Meaningless apologetics. It doesn't matter that they happened to be profitable. It was religion that was used to justify them. That is the difference you seem incapable of grasping.

Such as?

An how about the fact the Catholic Church basically BUILT Western Civilization? Our Schools, Our Hospitals and the fact it's the worlds largest and possibly oldest charity organizations on the planet?

More ignorant twaddle. If it weren't for scientists who constantly challenged religious dogma, we'd still be living in the dark ages. Medicine would have never progressed beyond bloodletting and leeches thanks to superstitious nonsense about cutting people open and experimenting on bodies.

Do you mean as in important issues or little side things that have no real importance and are rather optional like vestments and candles? If the latter I invite you to come check out a Catholic Church that is orthodox for a very nice surprise. if you show up for a theology on tap event there's normally beer

How about whether or not females are allowed to be priests for starters? I seem to recall recent debacles where the Catholic Church was getting its panties in a knot over the issue. Or is gender equality not important?

I will not deny that there have been a minority... In fact going over some notes at times a majorty that where bad. But the bad always become a majority soon.

The Protestant Church started due to disagreements with the Vatican. Once again you are lying.

An Atheist refuse to believe the Catholic Church is bringing that under control and the problem is being well fixed. But then why give up a useful lever to use against the Church?

They're fixing it. . .how? I don't see any priests being locked up in jail. Just "reassigned".

[SilverWingedSeraph]

Are you fucking high, Invictus ChiKen? Or are you just more retarded than I actually thought?

Well the Precious Blood of Our Lord Jesus did back quite a punch at Mass today

As for retarded why? Because I do not agree with your points of you?

Because you're incapable of using logic and reason, actually.

Are you saying that there are absolutely no contradictions within the bible, a stance that any intelligent Christian avoids like the plague because it is goddamn indefensible? Anyway, I thought you left the Catholic Church after your girlfriend left you?

I am saying that it is wrong to state that all Holy Men just pick and choose. Maybe to some it's the same as saying no contradictions but not in my eyes.

If there are contradictions in the bible, then how can you do anything other than pick and choose, genius? It's impossible to follow the whole thing word for word, because it's internally inconsistant, so saying that all Holy Men just pick and choose is entirely accurate unless you can demonstrate to the contrary. What you think to be "wrong" in this instance is utterly meaningless.

As for leaving yes I left and was out for over a year and went back...

After my ex I just wasn't thinking clearly and blamed my faith on it. I see a few here have had the same thing happen. Difference is I realized it was wrong to blame religion as a whole for my misfortune.

You flip-flopped.

Okay, so you are a retard. How is "not wanting religion around" or "not liking religion" a moral value, dipshit? More over, its up to you to prove that atheists want that in the first place. I don't particularly care to see religion exterminated,

Glad to hear you don't. To reference where you find many that consider it a moral imperative to stamp out religion just look around this board for a few months.

I've been on this board for ages, you stupid dipshit. I know that there are plenty of people here who'd like to see religion relegated into the realm of things that no self-respecting person would take seriously. And what you're missing is that it's their own choice. Atheism doesn't "teach" it. Atheism doesn't have any tennants you need to follow. Saying that it's part of the moral values of atheism is an outright lie.

Atheists have their own opinions on things. That doesn't make Atheism a moral code. All that atheism is, is a disbelief in god. From there, we can form our own sets of moral values.

True and sometimes they are bad moral codes.

No shit, really?

My point is you can't just say oh those moral codes weren't made my true atheists. To show why that is important let us say hypothetically that we end up with 20 nations founded on Atheism that's populations are total de-religioned. 19 of them become Hell Holes. At what point can we say it's because of Atheism?

It's dependant on other factors, you dumbass. Show me one place that's a shithole BECAUSE of atheism, and not because the rest of the laws that are put into place are dictatorial and generally inhumane. Seriously, give me one example, you dishonest little fuck. If you could offer any examples of atheism actually being the demonstrable cause of any nations becoming hellholes, then your statement might have some merit. But you can't, and it doesn't.

No one founds a nation on "Atheist values" anyway, because such a thing does not exist.

You are a fuckwit.

So can anyone on this board debate like an adult without having to result to Jr. High level name calling?

Nice try, but we don't need to. We're allowed to call you an idiot for acting like an idiot, and your complaining about it is meaningless.

[Invictus ChiKen]

So let's just cut to the chase. No matter how well thought out my arguments your going to disagree with them call me an idiot, liar and so on.

Others will present there counter arguments.

I will then present my counter arguments followed.

The cycle repeats.

Is there a point to this?

[Broomstick]

Race is a loosely defined social construct of similar looking people with a similar heritage. Historically, Jews and Arab say they are brothers due to they both are decedents from Abraham. Genetically they are closely related with Palestinians and Syrian Arabs. If you want to claim racism then you have to say they are being racist against their own race. In Nigeria, sometimes a girl from one tribe can’t marry a guy in another tribe. Is that racism? Is it that the two tribes that lived together for hundreds of years are black and racist against blacks? If they would marry would it be an inter-racial marriage being they define themselves in distinct groups? Of course not.

Yeah, actually two tribes that consider each other separate "races" who are biased against each other are racist, even if WE would define them as being in the same group.

The reality is we are all one species - any other division, even when based on a biological trait, is to one degree or another somewhat arbitrary as in reality there are not sharp divisions between populations but gradations. "Race", although a real concept, is mutable.

Slavery:
The verses you are referring to isn’t slavery its being a bond servant. The NKJ version of scripture reads the meaning of the Greek word Doulos (bond servant) – bond, bondman, servant. So it’s not slavery as you might think rather its someone working off a debt or a paid servant.

Indentured servitude is a form of slavery, in that one person is benefiting from the labor of another who has no ability to terminate or change the conditions of the contract. It's not as bad as North American chattel slavery was, but it still exists on the spectrum. In actual fact, the first Africans brought to North America were "indentured servants" legally, and that later evolved into race-based chattel slavery.

A "paid servant" is not an indentured servant. They are an employee.

Equality of the sexes:
God states in his scripture that a man is the head of the house hold and his wife must observe that.

Right. He's king, she's chattel. Doesn't matter if she's the most capable of the two, or he's batshit insane, or gone soft in the head - he's the man, he's in charge because he has a penis and testicles and she doesn't. Institutionalized inequality.

So happy NOT to be christian and a second-class person.

It also states that a husband must serve his wife by putting her desires ahead of his own and be willing to die for her just as Christ did for the church. Both wife must serve her husband and husband serve his wife.

Uh-huh - they must serve each other but he's always in charge. Again, institutionalized inequality.

Nothing about that line says anything about marriage. It is YOU who thinks that it means equal treatment between races in ANY respect other than worship, and if you interpret it that way, then you must also interpret it to mean equal treatment between sexes and the elimination of slavery.

Gotta admit, John, there's nothing in that verse that says "By the way - this only applies to worship."

He quotes Leviticus to explain why homosexuality is evil. Now answer the point, Evasion Man.

Mike, quote the verse so I can look it up and see what it says. I don’t recall Paul quoting Leviticus about homosexuality so I need to actually read it to answer you.

Let me get this straight - you're asking an atheist to find a verse in the Bible for you? Haven't you ever heard of a concordance? There's a bunch on the web, even a pagan such as myself knows that.

[Alyrium Denryle]

So let's just cut to the chase. No matter how well thought out my arguments your going to disagree with them call me an idiot, liar and so on.

Others will present there counter arguments.

I will then present my counter arguments followed.

The cycle repeats.

Is there a point to this?

The problem is child, is that your arguments are not well thought out and lack even a small portion of this little thing called honesty.

The point now, is the group of us deriving pleasure from ripping you apart

[The Duchess of Zeon]

So let's just cut to the chase. No matter how well thought out my arguments your going to disagree with them call me an idiot, liar and so on.

Others will present there counter arguments.

I will then present my counter arguments followed.

The cycle repeats.

Is there a point to this?

So Mike can hopefully ban you, if he feels like it, for being a lying shitcock who claims that secret Jews--who were FORCED to convert to Christianity in the first place!--were "traitors to the church". Holy fucking shit you are a dumbass. And one who just loves pimping his fucking religion, too, like the cheap one blow whore that it is.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Gotta admit, John, there's nothing in that verse that says "By the way - this only applies to worship."

There is something interesting there. The Jewish prohibition against women instructing men is a product of 3rd century rabbinic judiasm, it is a legal and cultural rule, not a religious one. Paul was supposedly a rabbi. It stands to reason that he (to the extent he existed) decided he liked this rule and tried to make it a religious command rather than the optional variety that is presently considered outmoded in most of modern Jewry.

It also means he may not have written anything until the 3rd century....

[Invictus ChiKen]

The point now, is the group of us deriving pleasure from ripping you apart

While I derive pleasure from seeing a bunch of supposedly mature adults reduced to acting like there in Jr. High and the teacher just walked out of the room

[Alyrium Denryle]

The point now, is the group of us deriving pleasure from ripping you apart

While I derive pleasure from seeing a bunch of supposedly mature adults reduced to acting like there in Jr. High and the teacher just walked out of the room

Maybe if you were capable of honest argument we could have a reasonable discussion. But you are not. So dont play innocence abused here.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The point now, is the group of us deriving pleasure from ripping you apart

While I derive pleasure from seeing a bunch of supposedly mature adults reduced to acting like there in Jr. High and the teacher just walked out of the room :lol:

Whatever, shitcock. This is the way this board ALWAYS behaves. If you have a problem with it, leave.

[Invictus ChiKen]

The point now, is the group of us deriving pleasure from ripping you apart

While I derive pleasure from seeing a bunch of supposedly mature adults reduced to acting like there in Jr. High and the teacher just walked out of the room

Maybe if you were capable of honest argument we could have a reasonable discussion. But you are not. So dont play innocence abused here.

I am just an honest argument here is the same as Foreign Policy to America i.e. beaten and whimpering.

Not many of you would last long in a real debate where you had to actually act like adults.

[StarshipTitanic]

That I use religion as a safety net to compensate for the fact that I have next to no friends around here because I was the friendly yet she guy that spent all his time in the library and not playing sports in High School. Thus being labeled a godless fagot.

Thus my childhood sucked, my teen years sucked and my twenties sucked and it'll be proof there is some kind of the God being the likes me if my whole life doesn't end up like 'Failure to Launch' meets 'The 40 year old virgin.'

But at least I am honest about it.

The link.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I am just an honest argument here is the same as Foreign Policy to America i.e. beaten and whimpering.

Not many of you would last long in a real debate where you had to actually act like adults.

Guess what, you donkey-cocked son of a crackwhore? We FOLLOW THE RULES on the board. If we were in a "real debate", we would, *gasp* Follow the motherfucking rules there, too.

[RedImperator]

So let's just cut to the chase. No matter how well thought out my arguments your going to disagree with them call me an idiot, liar and so on.

Others will present there counter arguments.

I will then present my counter arguments followed.

The cycle repeats.

Is there a point to this?

Entertainment for the audience, mostly at your expense.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

That I use religion as a safety net to compensate for the fact that I have next to no friends around here because I was the friendly yet she guy that spent all his time in the library and not playing sports in High School. Thus being labeled a godless fagot.

Thus my childhood sucked, my teen years sucked and my twenties sucked and it'll be proof there is some kind of the God being the likes me if my whole life doesn't end up like 'Failure to Launch' meets 'The 40 year old virgin.'

But at least I am honest about it.

The link.

Someone should sig that. Or force it to be Kee-chi's sig.

[StarshipTitanic]

I'd like to apologize for dog-piling the dumbfuck like a newbie trying to earn street cred, but I was lurking Testing recently and his comment on the "defensive war" Crusades raised the history nerd's ire in me.

[SilverWingedSeraph]

While I derive pleasure from seeing a bunch of supposedly mature adults reduced to acting like there in Jr. High and the teacher just walked out of the room

Maybe if you were capable of honest argument we could have a reasonable discussion. But you are not. So dont play innocence abused here.

I am just an honest argument here is the same as Foreign Policy to America i.e. beaten and whimpering.

I can barely make any sense of that first statement, as it's riddled with horrible grammar and even worse syntax. So I'm not sure what the fuck you're trying to say there. What you're failing to understand, however, is that your points were factually wrong, by a very large margin, and it's been pointed out numerous times. Instead of conceding, you're now waffling about and complaining that we're just too darn mean and horrible.

Not many of you would last long in a real debate where you had to actually act like adults.

Have done. Continue to do so. Honesty, I'm not sure you even know what a real debate is, with the way you've been going. Nice ad hominem, by the way.

I'm curious how much longer you'll last here with that attitude, before you get banned. I think I'll place a $50 bet on "not much longer".

[Invictus ChiKen]

Well Mike did say by supper if I didn't respond to a statement I made. We will see if my response suits him.

Eh if I am banned I am banned. There's a million boards out there.

[General Zod]

I am just an honest argument here is the same as Foreign Policy to America i.e. beaten and whimpering.

Not many of you would last long in a real debate where you had to actually act like adults.

If you were interested at all in being honest you wouldn't whine like a little bitch over being called a naughty word even though that's been board practice forever and you've been signed up here long enough to know better.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Not many of you would last long in a real debate where you had to actually act like adults.

Um... You realize I am a bio grad student who regularly deals with creationists and other religious whackjobs in public right? I am nasty here because I can be. Otherwise, I am perfectly fine being civil, if caustic.

[Invictus ChiKen]

I am just an honest argument here is the same as Foreign Policy to America i.e. beaten and whimpering.

Not many of you would last long in a real debate where you had to actually act like adults.

If you were interested at all in being honest you wouldn't whine like a little bitch over being called a naughty word even though that's been board practice forever and you've been signed up here long enough to know better.

Who's whinning I find it hilarious always have even when I took part. I tend to have favorites for this, those that can very it up and keep it interesting instead of using the same old same old.

[Imperial Overlord]

I am just an honest argument here is the same as Foreign Policy to America i.e. beaten and whimpering.

Not many of you would last long in a real debate where you had to actually act like adults.

Yeah, that's right. How dare we call you four letter words when mocking your lies, distortions, and bad logic? The former is much more offensive than the latter.

Go play the victim card with people who care. We've seen your lies and we've seen them torn to pieces. I'm sure you'll be shown the door soon enough.