Butthurt white guys, an Asian virgin and an angry lesbian walk into a bar...

khalid_sl said:

Who is defending Saddam Hussein as a legitimate source of social mores?

You on the other hand defended the Catholic church and said it was changeable.

Click to expand...

Look you doubled down on the church being worse than public schools at molestation, you dissapeared while facts were brought to the table. Now you are back and just lashing out with your bigotry and assuming a lot about other people's beliefs. We get it. You need someone to blame.

khalid_sl said:

You still don't get it, do you? I don't give a fuck about you. Your silly beliefs (which btw, you are too ashamed to openly admit after you were mocked for them) don't bother me that much. They are stupid, but lots of people are stupid. It is religions spreading them to children and codifying them in law that is the problem.

Also, if I had children, you are damn right I would teach them the history of religions. I wouldn't have to indoctrinate them with anything. The history of all religions and how only one specific interpretation could possibly be true, yet they all claim to be true, should hopefully be enough to ensure they are an atheist.

Click to expand...

I am too ashamed to openly admit what belief? I have never shied away from any belief I have. Point that out so I can rectify it. I am guessing you just neglected to read one of my replies kind of like you are doing now.

So the fact that there are multiple religions claiming they are real (including atheism) means he would pick only one of them and that would be atheism? Your logic is flawed my friend. Atheism wouldn't pass that litmus test either. At that point it is just another religion claiming it is the real truth. You have to disprove all other religions if you are going to take the weak stance of "too many religions out there so none can be right". Is this why you usually leave a debate by now?

khalid_sl said:

Lithose and Mist pretty much destroyed you on your "facts", but as usual, you ignore anything contrary to your "faith".

Also, spare us your "poor mistreated religious people schtick", especially in the US. Simply saying you are an atheist effectively bars you from high office and we have republican presidential candidates falling all over themselves to state they believe in ID.

Click to expand...

Point out where Lithose even responded to me once. Mist didn't even come close to an argument, just stuck with the "I don't buy it" bullshit. This was about faith? HAHAHA you really don't read gud do you. I deplore the Catholic priests involved in this and I abhor the fact that they covered it up. I feel that the reality is that they are a drop in the bucket compared to the real monster we turn a blind eye to. There is no religion in this topic. There are bad people out there doing bad things to kids. They ALL need to be stopped and until we stop ignoring the bigger group of predators for the sake of scapegoating the Catholics our children won't be safe.

I am mistreated? You are the one complaining about the oppressiveness of religion holding you down. You are the one that is being discriminated against in your opinion. You are the one that has to live on this poor planet alongside the evil religious people attacking you at every turn. I live a great life. Nobody is oppressing me.

Lithose_sl said:

That one in fifty quote was a fabrication, pretty much. The Vatican denied it, and the "interview" was not an actual interview (Just a conversation) and there was no transcription of the conversation. The actual numbers, from a survey the Catholic church paid for (If I recall correctly) put the abuse at 1-2% among all church staff (Which is what the discussion was abouty--Pope Francis then said that those numbers don't comfort him; and he's going to beat the pedophiles with a stick or some shit. I have two very catholic grandmothers, heh) . I have no idea what the abuse rate is within the population on the whole, so take that for what you will--I do believe it's higher within the church.

Click to expand...

Lithose_sl said:

But, from what I understand, "Church staff" also means teachers and workers employed by the church (Don't forget, the Catholic school system is fairly massive). So the actual rate among priests, Bishops and the typical people you see actually associated with the abuse is much lower than 1 in 50 (Which is why he claims he never said it.)

Click to expand...

Lithose_sl said:

It is disturbing, but for different reasons for me. It disturbs me because in society we focus nearly all of our attention on "stranger danger" and other silly stuff. To the point where we don't allow men without kids in some parks, or men to sit on planes next to children and other just absurd "safeguards". But the reality is, the largest threat to your child isn't some stranger; it's a family member, or teacher or priest or someone who has a previous and trusting relationship with them. You should be far more wary of leaving your child with your in-laws, than of some random dude strolling through the park.

Humans have an amazing amount of hubris when it comes to "judging" character. We believe that if we've known someone for years, there would be signs that would clearly paint them as a pedophile. But that's just not the case. Pedophiles often operate around people they know well, and build lifelong relationships with the children they molest; often right under their parents nose...Yet no one is ever worried about Uncle Jack or Aunt Betty; it's always the odd guy with the camera (Even though he has as much a chance of harming your kids as lightning does.)

Click to expand...

Here are the three quotes from Lithose. Not one disagreeing or agreeing with me other than to agree that the 1 in 50 was a.) off the cuff and b.) probably not accurate. He then proceeds to agree in abstract that molestation needs to be taught to children in a more real manner by warning of the danger of figures in power that are involved in their daily lives and not just strangers.

khalid can't reed gud

khalid_sl said:

Atheism isn't a belief in a religion or a religion itself, it is disbelief in a diety. You claim to have taken classes in theology? Lol When you have multiple competing versions of events in the world, all of which contradict each other, it is clear that only one of them could be true, or all of them are false. Given that a person has no more evidence of which is true than any other, the only rational choice is to admit that they all are false. Certainly "randomly picking one and believing it" isn't a rational choice. Take a class in logic or philosophy, please.


As for your beliefs that you backed off on. You said cloning was impossible "because souls" and then backed the fuck down when people mocked you for it. You claimed belief in flood geology and then now try and deny it. You straight up supported slavery in the bible and then backed down to it.

Btw, I like how you keep claiming I leave debates, as some weird attempt to keep me arguing with you. Because of this, I will now leave this debate for others to argue your silliness.

Click to expand...

Did not back down from any of that.

1.) I do not think cloning will happen "because souls" BUT I think we should try because I feel it would help answer that question. I feel there is no moral reason not to. No back down there.
2.) I did not claim belief in flood geology, I said that most Christians believe in it and very specifically did not claim that belief myself. I even stated I know nothing about it. No back down there.
3.) I did/do support "slavery" in the Bible. Just as much as you typing on that tablet/phone/computer made by "slaves" now support it as well. I told you I would admit that it was real slavery and I did, did I not? Did you not have that as a signature?

I know that atheism isn't a religion. The way you are claiming you would teach your kids though would just put it in the pile with all the religions. You can't just tell somebody about all the religions and they will magically see it is too complicated and pick atheism unless you are presenting that alongside your presentation of all the religions therefore making it sound like just one of the religions. You are also basically saying your imaginary kid would realize that all these beliefs are too complicated and would pick the easiest one aka atheism. Your kid is just slow and stupid and doesn't want to think about it. That is what you are saying. You should have said you would present the flaws in all the religions and tell him that they are all wrong. That is how you 'indoctrinate' this kid. There belief would be firmly rooted in facts instead of just picking atheism because all the religions confuse his small brain.

Jais_sl said:

Am I cool to mix fabrics?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

Click to expand...

One of those that have never read the Bible and heard about the fabric thing and think they are super clever despite that entire thing being explained over and over ad nauseum.

The Koran is never worth reading. You obviously have never read it.

You cannot automatically just say that someone will pick atheism because not all the religions can be right at the same time. That is ridiculous. That would be like saying khalid and a_skeleton_03 can't both be right so instead of picking a side I am going to say Game of Thrones is real.

Jais_sl said:

Lead me to an explanation as to why I either shouldn't wear wool and linen, or explain how it's some vague allegory to something else.

Click to expand...

The OLD testament rule (like many of those) was one of practicality and was put into place to prevent people from being tricked into paying for clothing that outwardly looked like one type of cloth but in reality was a blend and inferior to the pure cloth of another type. Now you may have heard there was a NEW testament that pretty much obliterated those rules and established a new set. This is all explained in great detail throughout the New Testament and quite easy to comprehend. Some Jews still follow those Old Testament rules 100% literally. Protestants and Catholics do not. You are now going to ask about homosexuality. Yes it is mentioned in the New Testament. It is not mentioned favorably, nor is it said that we must crusade against them. I do not. I accept them. If you are going to ask me if I think it is a sin, I do. Do I think it will prevent them from going to heaven or worse than any other sin? No, I don't believe there is any evidence of that.

There are Christians out there that believe there is more to talk about than homosexuality, abortion, and pre-marital sex.

khalid_sl said:

It is vile and contradictory. However, so is the Bible, just not as extreme. A billion people or so believe it to be true, which makes it worth my time.



Again, you misrepresent. If Khalid and a_skeleton_03 both proclaim contradictory things and present zero evidence for either of them, the correct thing to say is "I don't believe in either of them". That is atheism.

Click to expand...

No the Koran is just a poorly written jumbled mess despite it's message. Regardless if it preached rainbows and butterflies it would still not be worth reading. If you have read it and understood it you most likely read a synopsis.

No the middle ground between you and I would agnosticism which is what your kid would most likely choose and as much as it's the cowards way out it makes more sense than anything else if you can't come to grips with the two black and whites you choose the grey.