If humans and animals are related, is bestiality wrong?

mythrys
Theist
Posts: 35
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
If humans and animals are related, is bestiality wrong?

Now, I'm not trying to be unkind, because I love you all, but you atheists must believe bestiality is ok because humans are animals according to you. Horses + burros = donkey, so what about human + monkey?


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Psymn wrote: yeah, does

Psymn wrote:

yeah, does the bible say anything about 'thou shall not stick it to kids'?

 


Please don't be dense. Not all of the bible is commands on how to behave.  Here's a little snippet. Note the last line.

 

 

Behold, thou art fair, my love; behold, thou art fair; thou hast doves' eyes within thy locks: thy hair is as a flock of goats, that appear from mount Gilead.
Thy teeth are like a flock of sheep that are even shorn, which came up from the washing; whereof every one bear twins, and none is barren among them.
Thy lips are like a thread of scarlet, and thy speech is comely: thy temples are like a piece of a pomegranate within thy locks.
Thy neck is like the tower of David builded for an armoury, whereon there hang a thousand bucklers, all shields of mighty men.
Thy two breasts are like two young roes that are twins, which feed among the lilies.

Song of Solomon, 4. 1


Psymn
Posts: 29
Joined: 2008-01-19
User is offlineOffline
Quote:

Quote:
Behold, thou art fair, my love; behold, thou art fair; thou hast doves' eyes within thy locks: thy hair is as a flock of goats, that appear from mount Gilead.

Statement of love, compairs subject to prized possesions at the time, livestock...

Quote:
Thy teeth are like a flock of sheep that are even shorn, which came up from the washing; whereof every one bear twins, and none is barren among them.

wtf, teeth having twins? is this on about how many sets of teeth people have?

Quote:
Thy lips are like a thread of scarlet, and thy speech is comely: thy temples are like a piece of a pomegranate within thy locks.

Is anyone getting moist?

Quote:
Thy neck is like the tower of David builded for an armoury, whereon there hang a thousand bucklers, all shields of mighty men.

If im assuming this is relevent to kids? then did they make the kids carry the wargear or something?

Quote:
Thy two breasts are like two young roes that are twins, which feed among the lilies.

O RIGHT!!, sorry for being so silly. I didnt know the bible was so clear. All my life... well i never :/ . This statement so CLEARLY shows us that it is biblically WRONG to nail kids! Sticking out tongue

 

And seriously even if this did say ANYTHING about the ethics of child abuse it would only have applied to girls.

Is that why the boys are such a ripe target to the abstinate religious folk because their not exactly protected in a direct biblical sense?

 

And anyway... you cant take something like that and expect me to understand it because i havent had it's current meanings explained to me by some1 who is already indoctrinated to the beliefs. Nor would it make any sense to you if some1 hand not explained to you what you were supposed to take from it :/

Its vague and has transitory/multiple interpretations

TBH


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Psymn wrote: And anyway...

Psymn wrote:

And anyway... you cant take something like that and expect me to understand it because i havent had it's current meanings explained to me by some1 who is already indoctrinated to the beliefs.

 

EXACTLY. You admit you haven't the background to comment and yet you make sweeping generalizations about what is in the bible. That's as bad as a young earther trying to teach DeludedGod about evolution.  


Psymn
Posts: 29
Joined: 2008-01-19
User is offlineOffline
yeah i admit that, i

yeah i admit that, i admitted it, im not totally unreasonable.

But that wasnt the main point. The main point is that your understanding of that text is only based on someones teachings of the texts to you. I bet the are small quirks, or differences on many specifics even just from one church to the next, depending on whos preaching it.

I guarantee you that if you gave the bible to someone who didnt know anything about it, even if they were willing to believe, they would not arrive at the same meaning for that passage as what the church teaches you.

Still the most interesting thing here, is that just like alot of people think all muslims are a bit 'sympathetic' to the terrorists on religious grounds. Im getting the feeling that 1 vague passage with no meaning is the best biblical reason to not nail kids. And as we all know, its the bible that bestows ethics on us (as suggested by this thread), andd nowhere in the bible does it say specifically dont abuse young boys?

Your passage inplies they rever young girls but they dont say anything about young boys eh?

BIGGEST LOOPHOLE IN HISTORY


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Psymn wrote: yeah i admit

Psymn wrote:

yeah i admit that, i admitted it, im not totally unreasonable.

But that wasnt the main point. The main point is that your understanding of that text is only based on someones teachings of the texts to you. I bet the are small quirks, or differences on many specifics even just from one church to the next, depending on whos preaching it.

I guarantee you that if you gave the bible to someone who didnt know anything about it, even if they were willing to believe, they would not arrive at the same meaning for that passage as what the church teaches you.

Still the most interesting thing here, is that just like alot of people think all muslims are a bit 'sympathetic' to the terrorists on religious grounds. Im getting the feeling that 1 vague passage with no meaning is the best biblical reason to not nail kids. And as we all know, its the bible that bestows ethics on us (as suggested by this thread), andd nowhere in the bible does it say specifically dont abuse young boys?

Your passage inplies they rever young girls but they dont say anything about young boys eh?

BIGGEST LOOPHOLE IN HISTORY

What the fuck are you talking about? Where did pedophilia get pulled into the conversation? You made a generalization about the bible that is flat wrong. I showed you a passage that invalidated your generalization and you blather on about raping children. Take a lesson from Rook Hawkins. Learn the material before you spew. 


Psymn
Posts: 29
Joined: 2008-01-19
User is offlineOffline
Your disputing my

Your disputing my background, thats fine and a normal defensive posture.

Youve establishedd that my direct comments on the bible are vague and wrong and i have agreed with you 2 posts in a row.

 

The question was posed, is it ethically ok to have sex with an animal and could a athiest recognise ethical boundaries without the teachings of christ. (expande but accurate imo)

Someone else mused another all too common disparity between what you would assume religion is teaching andd what the teachers actually do, and basically from then im just exploring if there is any ehtical reason for christains to not bone kids as per any teachings in the bible.

So really what are you talking about? all youve said so far is that i havent read the bible so my opinion ddoesnt matter, and that the bible disnt written in a rule after rule way and providedd 1 paragraph to support that.

Im just curious if these priests still goto heaven iyo due to not infringing on any serious religious boundaries.

Because in my opinion they should be killed by the kids parents, its their job, but you would prefer them teaching religion to your kids?

Whos ethics are stonger?, beastiality aside


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Psymn wrote: Your

Psymn wrote:

Your disputing my background, thats fine and a normal defensive posture.

Youve establishedd that my direct comments on the bible are vague and wrong and i have agreed with you 2 posts in a row.

 

The question was posed, is it ethically ok to have sex with an animal and could a athiest recognise ethical boundaries without the teachings of christ. (expande but accurate imo)

Someone else mused another all too common disparity between what you would assume religion is teaching andd what the teachers actually do, and basically from then im just exploring if there is any ehtical reason for christains to not bone kids as per any teachings in the bible.

So really what are you talking about? all youve said so far is that i havent read the bible so my opinion ddoesnt matter, and that the bible disnt written in a rule after rule way and providedd 1 paragraph to support that.

Im just curious if these priests still goto heaven iyo due to not infringing on any serious religious boundaries.

Because in my opinion they should be killed by the kids parents, its their job, but you would prefer them teaching religion to your kids?

Whos ethics are stonger?, beastiality aside

You make some pretty broad assumptions about what I believe. You seem to be hung up on the sexual habits of priests with children. How can you ask if sexually predatory priests go to a place that you believe does not exist? You are an atheist, aren't you? 


Psymn
Posts: 29
Joined: 2008-01-19
User is offlineOffline
Im just asking for the

Im just asking for the official line... I thought that was quite clear.

I didnt make any assumptions in my last post, i asked a question, iyo=in your opinion, i cant even answer wether im an atheist or not, the deffinition has no importance. All i know is that i dont know the origins of the universe, but in all honesty, its just cant have anything to do with the bible, and christ, its just silly.

You seem to be making some pretty broad assumptions about what i post. You seem to be hung up on ignoring my question relating to the christian ethics on boy bumming.

Now please, if you guys think its ok to question the ethics of atheists on the basis that they dont adhere to the bible and christs teachings, then im just curious if a lack of any mention in the bible of choir boys and the buggery thereof, leading to certain death(at the hands of you the reader, not god, as leviticus phrases it above), is a possible reason for the multiple indescresions of people who are supposed to believe this crap more than anyone.

IMO they know so much about it, they know its bollocks Smiling

So yeah, i know ive got a point but whats more, i know that your last 3 posts were just evasions, i dont need to answer 'what i am', im not insecure enough to have to constantly label myself.

What are a thiests ethic regarding choir boy buggery and what referencs are there? Because if its non, then that just throws the doors of christian ethics WIDE OPEN mate Smiling

Id rather it were more christian to do the bad thing with a young goat, than a kid, as im sure you would too, in an ideal world where delisionists didnt cite ancient texts as the basis of human beings ability to percieve right and wrong.


TheHermit
TheHermit's picture
Posts: 32
Joined: 2008-01-22
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: Please

wavefreak wrote:

Please don't be dense. Not all of the bible is commands on how to behave.  Here's a little snippet. Note the last line.

 

 

Behold, thou art fair, my love; behold, thou art fair; thou hast doves' eyes within thy locks: thy hair is as a flock of goats, that appear from mount Gilead.
Thy teeth are like a flock of sheep that are even shorn, which came up from the washing; whereof every one bear twins, and none is barren among them.
Thy lips are like a thread of scarlet, and thy speech is comely: thy temples are like a piece of a pomegranate within thy locks.
Thy neck is like the tower of David builded for an armoury, whereon there hang a thousand bucklers, all shields of mighty men.
Thy two breasts are like two young roes that are twins, which feed among the lilies.

Song of Solomon, 4. 1

So some of the Bible is softcore pornography?  I'm sorry, I really don't understand the point you're trying to make.


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Psymn wrote: You seem to

Psymn wrote:

You seem to be making some pretty broad assumptions about what i post. You seem to be hung up on ignoring my question relating to the christian ethics on boy bumming.

I have never met a christian that thought ass fucking little boys was OK. You are simply spewing emotionally laden crap. It illuminates nothing but your lack of of subtlety.


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
TheHermit wrote:

TheHermit wrote:

So some of the Bible is softcore pornography? I'm sorry, I really don't understand the point you're trying to make.

The point:

wavefreak wrote:

Not all of the bible is commands on how to behave.

 


Xeron
Posts: 21
Joined: 2008-01-14
User is offlineOffline
First, I see no evidence

First, I see no evidence for the claim that there is a fixed percentage of homosexuality occuring among human beings.
Second, even if this is the case, I could just as easily argue that a fixed rate of beastiality occurs among human beings. Does this make it OK?
Third, no it does not. It still in both cases violates the natural laws that govern sexual relations and violates the purpose of sexual action.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

 

wow...just wow...wow...

first you rant about how for you nothing that is simply...umm...matter interacting with matter (neurons firing....chemistry) can have meaning , then you go dumb and asume that if youre delusional and weak everyone else must be aswell , then you go implying that if your god would die , you`d go crazy on us and kill for fun cause killing would have no meaning for you...and presume that everyone that doesnt believe in your god is actually a psycho like you, ...and you don`t understand why we don`t go crazy killing ppl and fucking apes

 

And then you blame homosexuality for ....beeing against the natural law (the same law that states that if certain conditions are met then certain neuronsfire...and we feel pleasure or pain...remember? the things you just defined as totaly meaningless) , and assert that the only moral things are those that conform to natural laws, like the law that states that sexual intercourse between male and female has a good chanche of ending up 9 mo later with a kid...and anything else is imorral

 I see...you need god so that reality can have meaning...i don`t need that crotch , i can find meaning in things , in society...you see if i have faith , it`s faith in humanity...maybe you need a god because you are a weak man and you fear that everyone is just like you...i feel sorry for you , but please stop 

 

you need someone to dictate what is right and wrong to you? you need it encoded in your genes? you fear you are unable to be good without someone forcing you to be good? If so , then I say your "good" and "evil" are meaningless . Objective moral values are meaningless , since humans individualy evolve , and society evolves aswell , any objective , fixed social law is doomed to failiure .

I mean 1000 years ago you would be the guy stating that slavery is good , moral , antislavery is bad , against the natural law that states that white man is better , more evolved then black man...and would argue it to be an objective truth

 

 

Further more , to your ideea of happines as infinite pleasure...not for me my friend , infinite pleasure? the knowledge to everything? i don`t need or want that HANDED over to me . I need the journey of descovery , i feel it`s what makes me human . Knowing that there is nothing left to know , discover , experience...and condemned to live forever like that...that would be my hell.

 

You are just scared...and you try to rationalize your fears by projecting them on others...deal with it , we are not all alike , we are different , we have different opinions ideeas , tastes (sexual even, kinks), and most of us can live with that ...and can CONSENT to certain rules of conduit so that our differences can lead to progress not conflict . I would not want to live in your ideal world , but i`m sure you allready know that i`m wrong , and you would force me to be like you anyway , so that i can be happy


Xeron
Posts: 21
Joined: 2008-01-14
User is offlineOffline
Another problem here is

Another problem here is that consent implies free will. But free will seems to be an unresolved question. And then there is coercion. If I take a woman on a date and her inital inclination is to not have sex with me, but by the end of the date, by virtue of my charm, she changes her mind, I have still coerced her. Where is the line drawn that turns coercion into a crime?

 

this is a good question , but the answer can be simple . It`s chemistry , hormones , flirt , it`s a rather complex game , involving a lot more physical signals then just "talk", and it`s up to the players to decide when to stop . I know girls that want it...but just love to act hard to get , i know this sounds realy misoginistic ,  but i`ve allso been on the other side , polite (dumb) boy who backed up when she said no , only to find out that all the "magic" of the game was destroyed and she left dissapointed . When it comes to romantical/sexual relations , there is no fixed line for persuation/coercion , it`s all personal , consent is not allway something written and signed . Some people enjoy Master/slave games ....some people like to spice it up with some pain   , i`m not on that side of the fence so who am i to comment and set rules?  


Psymn
Posts: 29
Joined: 2008-01-19
User is offlineOffline
Wavefreak wrote:

TheHermit wrote:
So some of the Bible is softcore pornography?  I'm sorry, I really don't understand the point you're trying to make.

His point was that the bible was not written in a rule by rule way, refuting one tiny segment of a post i made but using the theist 'superpower' of ignorance to ignore the fact he has no religious reason not to bone kids. 

Wavefreak wrote:
I have never met a christian that thought ass fucking little boys was OK. You are simply spewing emotionally laden crap. It illuminates nothing but your lack of of subtlety.

Thats double standards fella, ive seen theists pose to theists that athiests can have no morals because of the lack of god in their life, thats really the driving concept behind this question.

So if its perfectly fine (for theists) to question athiest morals regarding beastiality because they dont have a belief in god and also subscribe to an evolution theory.

Then i pose to you that BECAUSE you, theists, in general have been taught to place so much importance on belief, they believe that a lack of belief there would be a vacuum of morals. (which you (thiests) look to confirm by posing retarded quetions like in this thread)

This is fine, and would be acceptable in a modern fasion if 'faith' had a moral code that stood up to any scrutiny. But it doesnt. You guys (theists) cant even say, and provide biblical evidence why you think that paedophillia is wrong in the eyes of your god.

Im pretty sure that paedophillia's been around as long as homosexuality, so i pose it to you that kids have always been the sexual vent for ancient types that could get it, and women are simply the vessel to carry forth new kids.

This could explain why seemingly devout people take it upon themselves to nail kids because they know thats how its been done in the past (tho in places like greece they were less ashamed of that aspect of desire and left it in the history books), and that there is NO direct biblical reason not to (this seems to be a fact). They may have been aware that society would not like it but may have thought 'fuck society' because i want to, and god doesnt clearly deny it of them.

 

QUESTION) Why would these people forsake eternal life in heaven (in your view), if they REALLY believed that was attainable?

ANSWER) They WOULDNT, not for a second, and If i had a feeling that i could feel the holy spirit as an undeniable truth. I WOULD NOT FUCK AROUND WITH THAT NOR WOULD ANY OTHER PERSON IN THAT MENTAL STATE.

So the only 2 possible explanations to these numerous preist 'indescretions' (indescretions by the nature that they were found out not by the nature of the actions, because we still havent established that paedophillia is biblically wrong);

1) They didnt really believe this bible crap and decided to just do what the hell the pleased.

2) They do believe, but knew that god hadnt gone into specifics in the area and decided to risk it anyway in the hope that god doesnt care.

 

Im fairly certain these two options are widesweeping and non specific enough to be valid corridors of understanding as to the thinking behind a religious paedo. I know they are not perfect but i dont see any other option apart from maybe...

3) They were born destined to nail kids

or

4) They were just fucked in the head from years of not masturbating (yer right) and just snapped with no rational thought behind it.

 

Xeron wrote:
You are just scared...and you try to rationalize your fears by projecting them on others...

Thats right, you (thiests) think that if you make someone else believe, and it turns out to be false (i know you all secretly doubt this god stuff, but your 'scared as hell' to say it aloud), that you didnt at least get fooled alone.


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Psymn wrote: Wavefreak

Psymn wrote:

Wavefreak wrote:


Then i pose to you that BECAUSE you, theists, in general have been taught to place so much importance on belief, they believe that a lack of belief there would be a vacuum of morals. (which you (thiests) look to confirm by posing retarded quetions like in this thread)

 

You keep saying "you theists" as if all theists think alike. If you want to know what I think personally, you are going to have discard your assumptions about theists and start asking better questions. 


Psymn
Posts: 29
Joined: 2008-01-19
User is offlineOffline
Please sort out your post

Please sort out your post andd ill remove this line.

 

Im not interested in YOUR belief. I think my assumtions about christainity are fairly close to accurate in general terms. The way you are saying it, is that to refute the claims of christainity, you first have to have an understanding of all the subtle neuances that each christain has. I say fuck the subtle neuances becasue you (theists) have them despite christs teachings... >NOT BECAUSE OF THEM<

 So lets swing this away from your very self indulgent view that everything rotates around you (you are thiest arn't you?, even tho its been proved the earth is NOT the centre of the universe, christains still somehow believe that it is gods responsibilty to explain the meaning of the universe and its origin to them, silly), and lets examine the root beliefs surrounding the man made christain laws involving child molestation and christs so called teachings on the subject (none), as ive fruitlessly asked for 4 posts.

 

All im musing with this, is that when a christian is told that athiests have no moral obligations to god, they sorta imply that athiests have no moral obligations at all.

What im suggesting is that if thiests in general believe the morals of theists are sourced from god and christs teachings, but god/christ dont have alot to say about childd abuse, then ive got to agree with the child molesting clergy that it isnt religiously wrong to molest children in the eyes of the lord. You said youve never met a christain who molests kids, well ive never met an athiest who molests kids either so thats a dumb-as-fuck thing to say.

But of those child molesters that have been outed i think the ones in positions of trust, for example churches, but not stricktly limited to, are by far the worst ones, and the way you havent adressed the official view kind of this leads me to the conclusion that all christains are, by ignorance of reality and an ignorant understandding of the churches way, duplicitus to the molestation carried out by their representatives, thru not having an understanding of what the true (practiacally demonstrated) christain view is of 'laying pipe' with minors :/

 You dont know the answer wavefreak, if you do i know it will be more bullshit about how im not making any sense, without addressing any aspect of my valid points (validated as soon as theists claim to have a robust moral system).

Dont worry Wavefreak, its OK to not know the answer to something. But its a fucking crime in my eyes, if you allow an organisation your part of, to conduct itself without question (thru fear of questioning when the 'true religious' answers are there and unquestionable to the extent that it would be a crime against god to do so), when there is a possibility that they condone child molestation on one level or another. 


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Psymn wrote:   Im not

Psymn wrote:

 

Im not interested in YOUR belief. I think my assumtions about christainity are fairly close to accurate in general terms.

Are you assuming I am a christian because I am a theist?

Quote:

The way you are saying it, is that to refute the claims of christainity, you first have to have an understanding of all the subtle neuances that each christain has. I say fuck the subtle neuances becasue you (theists) have them despite christs teachings... >NOT BECAUSE OF THEM<

 

There you go again with the "you theists". Not all theists follow christs teachings.

Quote:

So lets swing this away from your very self indulgent view that everything rotates around you (you are thiest arn't you?, even tho its been proved the earth is NOT the centre of the universe,

Self indulgent? Piss off.

Quote:

christains still somehow believe that it is gods responsibilty to explain the meaning of the universe and its origin to them, silly), and lets examine the root beliefs surrounding the man made christain laws involving child molestation and christs so called teachings on the subject (none), as ive fruitlessly asked for 4 posts.

There you go talking about christians again. Not all theists are christians. And I personally don't care about other's ethics and morality. I have enough work dealing with my own. If you want to debate a mainstream christian you need to find one.

Quote:

All im musing with this, is that when a christian is told that athiests have no moral obligations to god, they sorta imply that athiests have no moral obligations at all.

This makes no sense. A christian believes EVERYBODY has a moral obligation to god and that atheists refuse to acknowledge that obligigation.

Quote:

What im suggesting is that if thiests in general believe the morals of theists are sourced from god and christs teachings,

A theist is not always christian. Haven't you got that yet?

Quote:

but god/christ dont have alot to say about childd abuse, then ive got to agree with the child molesting clergy that it isnt religiously wrong to molest children in the eyes of the lord.

WTF? Because some twisted sicko priest molests kids it means that it is part of christian theology?

Quote:

You said youve never met a christain who molests kids, well ive never met an athiest who molests kids either so thats a dumb-as-fuck thing to say.

What I said is that I never met a christian that said it was OK to molest kids. I've never met an atheist that said it was OK either.

 

Quote:

But of those child molesters that have been outed i think the ones in positions of trust, for example churches, but not stricktly limited to, are by far the worst ones, and the way you havent adressed the official view kind of this leads me to the conclusion that all christains are, by ignorance of reality and an ignorant understandding of the churches way, duplicitus to the molestation carried out by their representatives, thru not having an understanding of what the true (practiacally demonstrated) christain view is of 'laying pipe' with minors :/

You dont know the answer wavefreak, if you do i know it will be more bullshit about how im not making any sense, without addressing any aspect of my valid points (validated as soon as theists claim to have a robust moral system).

Dont worry Wavefreak, its OK to not know the answer to something. But its a fucking crime in my eyes, if you allow an organisation your part of, to conduct itself without question (thru fear of questioning when the 'true religious' answers are there and unquestionable to the extent that it would be a crime against god to do so), when there is a possibility that they condone child molestation on one level or another.

This is garbled bullshit.


Psymn
Posts: 29
Joined: 2008-01-19
User is offlineOffline
Wavefreak wrote: Are you

Wavefreak wrote:
Are you assuming I am a christian because I am a theist?

Yes but it doesnt matter if you are or are not. I made it clear i was more interested in the specifics of the dominant religion in the worlds dominant country, christianity.

 

Wavefreak wrote:
There you go again with the "you theists". Not all theists follow christs teachings.

Ok, fine, but i didnt question any other religion but christianity. If i was misusing the term thiest then i apologise. 

Wavefreak wrote:
Self indulgent? Piss off.

Nothing more self-indulgent then religion mate, on a mental level its like claiming that you know the mind and intent of what you believe to be a superbeing :/ absurd.

Wavefreak wrote:
There you go talking about christians again. Not all theists are christians. And I personally don't care about other's ethics and morality. I have enough work dealing with my own. If you want to debate a mainstream christian you need to find one.

Deadhorse much? if your not christian why dont you wait for someone to question your beliefs? Tho i think you are by the ferver that you exhibit trying to get a rise out of me (not going to happen).

I think you are christian (tho it is of little importance to the subject matter), just because you dont have an answer to this particular specific you are yourself garbling bullshit that soley relates to me (and my possibly wrong, but probably true assumptions) rather than expanding peoples understanding of religion in general that you so obviously already have Sticking out tongue.

You sir will fail to oppress my opinion.

Wavefreak wrote:
This makes no sense. A christian believes EVERYBODY has a moral obligation to god and that atheists refuse to acknowledge that obligigation.

This is just anally retentive semantics. Ultimately this leads to the same conclusion that i have mentioned, that theists feel they have a superiour moral agenda then people who have to find their own moral objectivity.

Wavefreak wrote:
A theist is not always christian. Haven't you got that yet?

the horse is deffo dead mate lol, im talking about christianity like most other people in this thread, dont punish me becasue you may or may not have some other 'fringe' belief.

Wavefreak wrote:
WTF? Because some twisted sicko priest molests kids it means that it is part of christian theology?

Possibly, who knows, when there is no biblical evedence to suport it either way :/

Wavefreak wrote:
What I said is that I never met a christian that said it was OK to molest kids. I've never met an atheist that said it was OK either.

So whats the point in religion if it doesnt effect the principals that we live by? Why would there be so many rules if people could arrive at these conclusions without christs aid? WHO BENEFITS FROM RELIGION? i would say that the scrubs at the bottom of the ladder benefit only in the way that it fills a hole in their obviously empty lives devoid of other reason and purpos, and gives them a feeling of self importance and purpose.

Nice sentament if it didnt also tell them to kill gay people and people following other religions (which is NOT what people wouldve concluded if they had been left to their own devises IMO), and at the same time leave a massive grey area surrounding the issue of child abuse.

Wavefreak wrote:
This is garbled bullshit.

OK so you dont belive that people abusing authority and trusted positions to get young ass is any worse or different in any way than someone whos say grooming the kids on the net where parents have at least an oppertunity to explain to kids not to trust people?

 Fine

 If you worked for a company (to the extent that you had memorised the company mission statement and had read the memoirs of the MD's going back 2000 years) that you discovered had leading officials that had thru time and upto and including the current day been involved in bringin suffering to the innocent, you wouldnt leave or even question your position in that company?

Fine

 

With this in mind, what religion are you btw? The-totally-blind -burn-my-eyes-out-and-call-me-a-bitch sect of psudo jesus'ness?


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Psymn wrote:   I think

Psymn wrote:
 

I think you are christian

LOL.

Somebody? Anybody? A little help here. 


Psymn
Posts: 29
Joined: 2008-01-19
User is offlineOffline
Well really, all you have

Wavefreak wrote:
Somebody? Anybody? A little help here.

FFS MAN stand on your own two feet and stop asking god for assistance :p 

 

Well really, all you have done is picked up on 2 small points that i could not possibly have known, your particular religion and the exact form of the writings in the bible, that dont even care about.

This tactic of 'changing the goalposts' from the point to something that discredits a very small and fairly irrelevent aspect of someone elses pov, and in turn (in your mind) discredits the whole argument, is lame mate.

This practice is the forte of scientolagsts tbh, but i would LOVE IT if you turned out to be one of those knobjockeys Sticking out tongue


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Psymn wrote: Wavefreak

Psymn wrote:

Wavefreak wrote:
Somebody? Anybody? A little help here.

FFS MAN stand on your own two feet and stop asking god for assistance Sticking out tongue

 

Well really, all you have done is picked up on 2 small points that i could not possibly have known, your particular religion and the exact form of the writings in the bible, that dont even care about.

This tactic of 'changing the goalposts' from the point to something that discredits a very small and fairly irrelevent aspect of someone elses pov, and in turn (in your mind) discredits the whole argument, is lame mate.

This practice is the forte of scientolagsts tbh, but i would LOVE IT if you turned out to be one of those knobjockeys Sticking out tongue

Actually, I was hoping Brian37 or Hambydammit would chime in here. You are so far off base about me that is is almost amusing. But you need to hear that from somebody that has doesn't have a theist tag under their avatar. 

 


Psymn
Posts: 29
Joined: 2008-01-19
User is offlineOffline
I dont think anyone here,

I dont think anyone here, if they know your religion or not, really think that im posting here specifiacally in ragards to your beliefs. All you are proving is that i dont know YOU, and you are a little backwards in coming forwards about your actual beliefs. Ashamed?

Get off your self-importance pedestal and let a christain answer the claims that they have no real ethical, religion-based guidance on the subject of child abuse, and in turn let them admit that athiest principals or morality are AT LEAST, and MORE valid then christain values (and lets face it, any theist values im aware of, you cant show me a rational argument to refute this).

 If my comments didnt apply to you in the first place (you knew i was talking about the bible and christ, and not some stupid Aztek or Incan beliefs) then why not just let the thread die because im sure no christain has a sensible answer to this.

Nor have you apparently, so what ive said could, apply to your religion as well, whatever it may be tbh. 


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Psymn wrote: I dont think

Psymn wrote:

I dont think anyone here, if they know your religion or not, really think that im posting here specifiacally in ragards to your beliefs. All you are proving is that i dont know YOU, and you are a little backwards in coming forwards about your actual beliefs. Ashamed?

 

Get off your self-importance pedestal and let a christain answer the claims that they have no real ethical, religion-based guidance on the subject of child abuse, and in turn let them admit that athiest principals or morality are AT LEAST, and MORE valid then christain values (and lets face it, any theist values im aware of, you cant show me a rational argument to refute this).

If my comments didnt apply to you in the first place (you knew i was talking about the bible and christ, and not some stupid Aztek or Incan beliefs) then why not just let the thread die because im sure no christain has a sensible answer to this.

Nor have you apparently, so what ive said could, apply to your religion as well, whatever it may be tbh.

Now you're being an ass. 


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: Psymn

wavefreak wrote:
Psymn wrote:
 

I think you are christian

LOL.

Somebody? Anybody? A little help here. 

 

i'll vouche, ive never seen Wave act like a christian... ever.

 

Round 2, coming up ^_^

What Would Kharn Do?


Psymn
Posts: 29
Joined: 2008-01-19
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote:

wavefreak wrote:
Now you're being an ass.

i dont see how i was being an ass, i cant think of any other way to move forward in this topic without halping you see that theres more to this than the syntax of the bible and what particular imaginary creator you subscribe to personally, infact i DID generalise as i agreed but they are also VERY SMALLl aspects of what ive asked.

I know the whole point of your participation in this thread is to wind me up and the moment you see it, you can label me as an ass, thus attempting to remove my point from subjectivity and out me as another angry godless athiest. I think you were premature in this case.

 

This is me being an ass ;

LEARN HOW TO USE FORUM TAGS YOU FREEKING IDIOT!

 

Any real christians wanna take this on? (the topic of child abuse and the relating christain morals, NOT which imaginary god Wavefreak suysbscribes to). Im appealing to people who dont simpy hide their beliefs in order to 'have one over on me' in the simplest way possible.

 

Quote:
i'll vouche, ive never seen Wave act like a christian... ever.

I dont really trust anyone with a quote from HK-47 in their sig, that isnt;

' "Love" is making a shot to the knees of a target 120 kilometers away using an Aratech sniper rifle with a tri-light scope. ' HK-47


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Psymn wrote: This is me

Psymn wrote:

This is me being an ass ;

LEARN HOW TO USE FORUM TAGS YOU FREEKING IDIOT!

 

Yes, you are being an ass. I have over 1600 posts to this forum. You have 21. I suspect I know how to use the tags. A few errant keys strokes and a high degree of apathy towards you results in a few hard to read posts. So shoot me.

 

If you would make some clear statements instead of this rambling crap you generate, then maybe I'd take you on. But I think you are either scared so you hide behind obfuscation or you aren't as capable of thinking as clearly as you consider yourelf to be.


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
Psymn wrote: I dont really

Psymn wrote:

I dont really trust anyone with a quote from HK-47 in their sig, that isnt;

' "Love" is making a shot to the knees of a target 120 kilometers away using an Aratech sniper rifle with a tri-light scope. ' HK-47

 

And with that... you lose all credibility in my eyes >.> lmao

What Would Kharn Do?


Psymn
Posts: 29
Joined: 2008-01-19
User is offlineOffline
i HAD credibility????? <3

i HAD credibility????? <3

 

Wavefreak wrote:
Yes, you are being an ass. I have over 1600 posts to this forum. You have 21. I suspect I know how to use the tags. A few errant keys strokes and a high degree of apathy towards you results in a few hard to read posts. So shoot me.

 

If you would make some clear statements instead of this rambling crap you generate, then maybe I'd take you on. But I think you are either scared so you hide behind obfuscation or you aren't as capable of thinking as clearly as you consider yourelf to be.

 

Ahhh, the diversion. You force me to say the same things over and over again by posting irrelevant rubbish and when it gets to the point where were totally off topic (talking about your 2 points for many posts in a row) you say that ive lost coherance.

I think you can read nearly all of my recent posts independantly and still concluide that you are missing the point and by your own admision dont really have a place here answering for the christain faith.

1600 posts only prove that you have posted 1600 times fella, and does not in anyway prove that you can use forum tags, nor ddoes me only having 21 posts, is this the bad logic you implement to choose a religion?

Rhetorical question really because its this twadle that made this thread overly complicated in the first place.

 

Ill tell you the real reason you cant 'take me on'...

Its because what ive said is true in a logical sense;

 

Christains believe that morals are derived from god and christs teachings. (true)

Christains are taught to believe that without religious teaching there is a void of moral in the human sole. (demonstratedd by this thread)

Christains DO NOT have a code of conduct or even a biblical precident to guide them in the right way to behave regarding sexual activity with minors. (and some practice it)

So with the lack of biblcal guidance on this topic, it follows that christains cant really use religion to reject the idea of paedophillia (or at least havent so far in this thread anyway), any more than they could expect a heathen to have good moral values.

I dont dislike you Wavefreak, im just insulted by this topics premiss, and i LOVE the fact that even though the state might have a thing or 2 to say about it, Christains are probably 'safe' as far as gods concerned regardless of how many kids botties theyve chalked up :/

I might be wrong but it doesnt seem like Wavefreak is heading in any direction to help me understand this HUGE AND POSSIBLY EXPLOITED LOOPHOLE in christain teaching :/


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Psymn wrote: Christains DO

Psymn wrote:

Christains DO NOT have a code of conduct or even a biblical precident to guide them in the right way to behave regarding sexual activity with minors. (and some practice it)

Except for that whole 'whosover harms a child, better for him that he were tied to a great millstone and cast into the sea' bit from JC in both Matthew and Mark...

Oh, and the minor point that most of the priest pedophilia you're talking about is young boys, which invokes Leviticus's prohibition against male/male sex acts.

Interestingly, Leviticus, which goes to great lengths to specify crimes for men and then seperately crimes for women, has no prohibition against female/female sex acts.

Proof that God, if one exists, is male. 

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


Psymn
Posts: 29
Joined: 2008-01-19
User is offlineOffline
Ok, fair points but now its

Ok, fair points but now its my turn to be anally semantic. (not reffering to you BMcD)

Theres eveidence that many representatives of god still choose to partake despite the words of JC and the book of Leviticus. How can they justify that to themselves if these people really think hell is waiting?

Terms.

leviticus doesnt say anything as general as male+male=death. it specifically says Man/Man = Death!, not mention of Man/Kid=Death.

JC didnt quite pop the lid on the can of worms either, with those words. Harm is such a reletive word, and if the kid is in fully workin order after the priest sends him on his way after the party then could the priest justify to himself (and therfore god) that no harm was done?

Im sure there were far more perilous and harmful things kids could get upto in those days, then getting tail from the kind man at the church. And i dont think corperal punishment at religious schools for exapmle was ever considered harm in the eyes of the lord (people) either

And tbh i dont think my way of interpreting these sources is unfair, Im sure similar tenuous interpretations of the terms in the bible have been made to support a particular pre-desired view.


Xeron
Posts: 21
Joined: 2008-01-14
User is offlineOffline
Psymn , you go in to the

Psymn , you go in to the realm of personal religion , this "addaptive disease" has nothing to do with reason and it`s viral , it will infect and adapt to any system , so you will get the "my kind of faith" , "my kind of theism" , people choosing what they like/want out of it , calling it personal intimate relation to god

Argumenting theist flaws based on the bible is like argumenting atheists flaws based on the actions of stalin . Please understand that theists who want to be theists will find ways to stay theists , even if the bible is debunked , proven moraly flawed , so don`t go there. You risk sounding like those guys saying that because atheism has no moral code atheists are not moral persons . Religion is about faith , about desire to be controled , about fear to make decisions , not about books , prophets...books and prophets are an adaptive context used to rationalize the (human?) desire to submit to some form of absolute , infailible leader...cause then you can not fail...all will be well as long as you follow the big boss .So personaly i`ve given up on attempting to disprove the reincarnation , creation , big guy in the sky things , it`s no use really , the issue is somewhere else , i mean , if we managed to land on the moon , mess with the DNA , and build nukes , cure diseases and so much more and people still find ways around it all and manage to hold on to some form of sky dady...


Psymn
Posts: 29
Joined: 2008-01-19
User is offlineOffline
Xeron wrote:

Xeron wrote:
Argumenting theist flaws based on the bible is like argumenting atheists flaws based on the actions of stalin . Please understand that theists who want to be theists will find ways to stay theists , even if the bible is debunked , proven moraly flawed , so don`t go there. You risk sounding like those guys saying that because atheism has no moral code atheists are not moral persons

 

Very well put (the rest of the post too)!

 

You hit the nail on the head. It would be nice to invent a 'get well pill' that rids people of the natural rational/irrational insecurities that religion preys upon.

However i already knew i was talking to a brick wall (my german reletives are born again).

I just decided that if theists are lording superior morals over atheist again (even after the 2000 years of near purpetual wars and discrimination), based on interpreted morals they didnt even have the balls to think of for themselves nor justify, I just thought id try and point out the imperfections of using an ancient text to support beliefs when the texts themselves are contradictory, transitory in meaning and totally not comprehensive of all the aspects crime and morals, which the (day-to-day gets lied to and believes all the crap) Christians would claim it to be.

 

So ya, that was my attempt.

 

*off topic*

I was thinking about making a thread called

"lets all kill just 1 scientologist each while we still outnumber them"

i think this might be the cause that finally unites believers and non-believers under a unified and logical cause.


Larty
Larty's picture
Posts: 145
Joined: 2007-05-25
User is offlineOffline
mythrys wrote:

mythrys wrote:
Now, I'm not trying to be unkind, because I love you all...

What's with all this "love" crap with Theists? I reallly doubt their sincerety when they say that they "love" Atheists and every person in the world. It just makes them seem "noble" in their belief, but it has nothing to do with their actual thoughts.

That's atleast what I think

mythrys wrote:
Because I love you, but hate your sins. I love atheists even though they tend to be mean to me, but I hate their sins. If you were falling off a cliff, I would try my best to save you. However, if your sins were falling off a cliff, I would push them.

It's okay to hate someone because it's so, very human! Jesus in the bible said that we must be "perfect", so you seem to think that you have to be "perfect" by LYING to us that you love us. You do dislike Atheists, but you want to tell us that you love us because that makes your God like you. If you please God, you will get to heaven. And that's anything but noble or sincere.

mythrys wrote:

Yes, human beings are very unique "animals", but still, we are just animals. The most smartest and highly evolved, but we are still related to them.

Nobody told me this, but I did find an article where a person had the same thought.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evolution%20Hoax/speculation.htm

Good thing you realised we are animals. You're clearly not one of those evolution-hating-kind of Theists.

Trust and believe in no god, but trust and believe in yourself.


Xeron
Posts: 21
Joined: 2008-01-14
User is offlineOffline
You hit the nail on the

You hit the nail on the head. It would be nice to invent a 'get well pill' that rids people of the natural rational/irrational insecurities that religion preys upon.

 

 

           No it wouldn`t...don`t you see...religion IS the pill , it`s the drug , You do not replace a drug with another drug . The way i think is to get people to agnowledge the human nature , we are what we are , our fears , insecurity , they are all natural and can be used for progress...curiosity is a main human attribute derived from insecurity , one of our greatest assets is the ability to say "i don`t know"

    Religion is the  drug , the easy way out , it presumes that we are cursed to start with , thus our attributes are made into flaws . We then need salvation , we need a "cure" , that`s what (at least x-ianity) says . 

    No , we aren`t cursed or diseased , we are just humans , there is nothing wrong with not knowing it all , not loving everybody , there is nothing wrong with our instincts , emotions , it is what we are , now the question is how do we deal with it? Do we chose the pill , the easy way out , the black and white version , good or evil , or do we face reality and try to make the best out of it . 

 

    No i`m not perfect , no i don`t want to be , i`m happy beeing  a human , and i`m happy to be able to chose my own fate 


Psymn
Posts: 29
Joined: 2008-01-19
User is offlineOffline
Again i agree with you, but

Again i agree with you, but i was just thinking it would be nice to just replace religion with a pill, Ive got nothing against religion, if people need it fine. Its just that when people choose that way out for selfish and pretty understandable reasons (even if they are lame), they sorta lend creedance and support to the real benefactors of religion, namely the bush family and all other religiously influenced political parties across the world, and various politically active religious groups that do have an agenda across all religions, that are still causeing deaths loosely in the name of god 2000 years on.

If only christains would see and think about some of the realities about what is being conducted as a direct consequence of the 'religious vote' in america, they might see true evil, and see that its cluster bombs and depleted uranium tipped shells.

Do unto others as you would have them do onto you?

I would brick myself at the sight of a depleted uranium shell heading my way. As would any christain too, even if they had convinced themselves their going to heaven. 

These are the true consequences of voting bush into power, which happened basically due to the religious vote on issues such as gay rights. Its totally backwards that youve got some of the poorest people in the world in america, believe it or not, and the bulk of them are understandably religious, and THEN THEY VOTE FOR A CONSERVATIVE/FACIST GOVERNMENT AND WONDER WHY THINGS ARE NOT GETTING BETTER FOR THEM LOL.

 Anyway im not bitching about this any more. Sufficed to say that if you can make a christain believe in a god, you sure as they believe in hell, can make them ignorant to the big picture and play them as pawns in a game on global conquest...

THATS my only REAL beef with you folks. 


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Psymn wrote: You hit the

Psymn wrote:

You hit the nail on the head. It would be nice to invent a 'get well pill' that rids people of the natural rational/irrational insecurities that religion preys upon.

They real question is would you force people to take this pill as a way of riding the world of theism? 


Psymn
Posts: 29
Joined: 2008-01-19
User is offlineOffline
I dont think force would be

I dont think force would be nessissary. It would be more like the ultimate test of faith...

If you are right then there should be no pill that makes you not believe in god, and in turn taking the pill should have no effect by your rational, even if it does make you more self-reasoning.

If i am right then you take the pill, immediately feel a wave of fresh air as 2000 years of hypocracy an sheer madness, that you have been trying to resolve with the world you see, internally, and without real success, are wiped from your concern.

You become a happier and more confident person because of it and are now free to question without looking over your shoulder to see if your blaspheming or even to see if your just getting the facts right accoring to a core belief that may not make common sense to you. But now if something feels right or wrong to you, it can be said freely and without shame or fear of extreme offence being taken by polar opposites, god or even those in your corner.

If people wanted not to take the pill that would be ok but they would of course be sent to live a natural life in rural areas on farms, where they can breed and create a second class human and praise god all they like as long as they never gain political influence and keep providing me with beefburgers Smiling

 

(i was using 'you' in the plural fyi b4 you (singular) start)


static12
Posts: 1
Joined: 2008-01-24
User is offlineOffline
If bestiality is without the

If bestiality is without the animals consent, why would the animals do it in the first place.  Its not like you make the animal get hard, the animal just chooses to be horny and do you in the butt.  So doing an animal without its consent is basically rape.  How do you rape the male sex?


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Psymn wrote: If people

Psymn wrote:

If people wanted not to take the pill that would be ok but they would of course be sent to live a natural life in rural areas on farms, where they can breed and create a second class human and praise god all they like as long as they never gain political influence and keep providing me with beefburgers Smiling

A new slave class, eh? How magnanimous. 


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3614
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
I can't believe a thread

I can't believe a thread about such a disgusting topic has lasted this long. This whole discussion is just sick.

 

 

...oops, wait a minute, there's a female German Sheperd over there whose giving me lot's of "go" signals. I'm outta here, my stud services are needed !

( ps, I bet she likes it doggie style )

 

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"The best government is a benevolent tyranny tempered by an occasional assassination." Voltaire ( 1694-1778 )


Psymn
Posts: 29
Joined: 2008-01-19
User is offlineOffline
Wavefreak wrote: A new

Wavefreak wrote:
A new slave class, eh? How magnanimous.

Why TY.

I admit it wasnt totally my idea, but at least i come clean about my intentions. Unlike you theist 'king' who is in the early stages of re-wilding vast parts of the US. They are accomplishing this by starting a process to remove on/off-ramps to freeways in rural areas so as to throttle the local economies there leaving a decimated population and resulting in mass urbanisation as the process speeds up. Once in your 'mega cities' you become trackable, uncertain of the fluid status of your rights and totaly goverened by the police in a police state style where you simply cant question that which is being put to you. Your patriot act already has removed your rights and as more 9/11's happen youll find tightening their grasp on your mind by desensitising you to the way your being treated. These laws are supposedd to be to protect against terrorism but i think you will find that it is YOU (plural) that is going to be the ultimate victim of these laws thru the loss of the lifestyle you currently have.

Isnt it amazing how religion has come full circle in the US and now threatens to permiate every aspect of your lives not just on the social level but on the government level as well.

I know your probably thinking that bush's times up soon but i assure you this particular agenda will NOT change as its part of the long term plan (from above the govt.) to sell off the freeways to foreign interests and charge tolls for passage making it even more difficult to travel. During this Wilding you may find yourselfs part of an North American union with Canada and Mexico, and once the urbanisation is complete and control is implemented you will be ready for integration into the European Union, African Union and the Asian Union. Tho there are signs that a war will be needed to push people opinions to that conclusion.

So yeah, this is the current outlook of US politics, so before you get sarcastic about my crazy little plan, take a look at the ASSED-CRAZY PLAN YOU (christains) VOTED FOR INDIRECTLY.

Hope your looking forward to it xD


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Psymn wrote: Wavefreak

Psymn wrote:

Wavefreak wrote:
A new slave class, eh? How magnanimous.

Why TY.

I admit it wasnt totally my idea, but at least i come clean about my intentions. Unlike you theist 'king' who is in the early stages of re-wilding vast parts of the US. They are accomplishing this by starting a process to remove on/off-ramps to freeways in rural areas so as to throttle the local economies there leaving a decimated population and resulting in mass urbanisation as the process speeds up. Once in your 'mega cities' you become trackable, uncertain of the fluid status of your rights and totaly goverened by the police in a police state style where you simply cant question that which is being put to you. Your patriot act already has removed your rights and as more 9/11's happen youll find tightening their grasp on your mind by desensitising you to the way your being treated. These laws are supposedd to be to protect against terrorism but i think you will find that it is YOU (plural) that is going to be the ultimate victim of these laws thru the loss of the lifestyle you currently have.

Isnt it amazing how religion has come full circle in the US and now threatens to permiate every aspect of your lives not just on the social level but on the government level as well.

I know your probably thinking that bush's times up soon but i assure you this particular agenda will NOT change as its part of the long term plan (from above the govt.) to sell off the freeways to foreign interests and charge tolls for passage making it even more difficult to travel. During this Wilding you may find yourselfs part of an North American union with Canada and Mexico, and once the urbanisation is complete and control is implemented you will be ready for integration into the European Union, African Union and the Asian Union. Tho there are signs that a war will be needed to push people opinions to that conclusion.

So yeah, this is the current outlook of US politics, so before you get sarcastic about my crazy little plan, take a look at the ASSED-CRAZY PLAN YOU (christains) VOTED FOR INDIRECTLY.

Hope your looking forward to it xD

Your are as delusional as any christian I've met.  


Psymn
Posts: 29
Joined: 2008-01-19
User is offlineOffline
Watch it happen, and weep

Watch it happen, and weepWink


Avaqtor
Posts: 1
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
My understanding of morals

My understanding of morals is that they are a result of evolutionary psychology and the current status quo. From an evolutionary perspective, having a desire to bang a chimp serves as a detrimental trait. Also, there is absolutly no reason whatsoever apart from some bizar fetish, to bang a chimp. shhep rooters elicit a similar response to gays in current society. In some circles its okay, some its not. Its not like murder. Being an atheist, to me, takes away the influence of social dynamics and allows me to think rationaly about it.


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Avaqtor wrote: \shhep

Avaqtor wrote:
\shhep rooters elicit a similar response to gays in current society. In some circles its okay, some its not.

What? 

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


Lady Venamisa
Posts: 1
Joined: 2009-08-09
User is offlineOffline
Hey St. Micheal!

If you are a Christian, why did you come to this site? Are you just trying to piss off random non-believers? Is this just a game to you?

 

Well, let me tell you something. Sex without consent from both individuals is considered rape. It doesn't matter if the parties involved are human/animal, human/child, ect., it is still morally wrong. So, yes, consent DOES mean a lot.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Lady Venamisa wrote:Are you

Lady Venamisa wrote:

Are you just trying to piss off random non-believers? Is this just a game to you?

 

 

Don't know about the motives of St Micheal, but that's why I'm here

 

 

 

 


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1474
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
(No subject)


cervello_marcio
Superfan
cervello_marcio's picture
Posts: 210
Joined: 2009-05-19
User is offlineOffline
 speciation. your analogy

 speciation. your analogy fails.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10543
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
lol Cap't. Well michael the

lol Cap't.
Well michael the fool is long gone. But welcome Lady Venamisa! Smiling

At least the 2012 thread isn't the only 2 year old thread resurfacing anymore. Sticking out tongue

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.