Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Do you believe they're acting in good faith? Do they truely believe what they say?


Do you support their right to do what they do?



I, personally, detest them. But looking into it, they're also not the KKK, in that they've never been violent, and obey all laws during their protests. In most cases, the grieving never even see them, as they're picketing some distance away, out of sight. They only find out from the television broadcasts (Which is certainly still very painful to see.)

Fred Phelps, Terry A Davis, and Francis E. Dec Esq. are the Holy Trinity reincarnated on Earth. We never take their names in vain.

I think they are pieces of shit, but I also think they truly believe what they say.

iOz4zg5mZBk

Still the single greatest line ever spoken in all human existence. YOU'RE GONNA EAT YOUR BABIES!!!

I think they believe what they say.

I also support their right to do what they do, even though I find them detestable.

As a Christian I actually probably find them more reprehensible than the average person, because not only do I look at them and think "oh their views and behavior are utterly reprehensible," but I also have to look at them and realize "Oh ****, some people are going to associate me with them and go 'SeE tHiS Is WhAt alL cHrIStIanS aRe lIkE!!!'"

On a scale of 1-10 with 10 being a good person.

They're a 1.

Originally posted by Silent Master
On a scale of 1-10 with 10 being a good person.

They're a 1.

What? No way!!!


A 4. 5 is neutral and causes no harm but causes no good. Karmic or actual.


4 causes a bit of harm.

1 is mass genocide.



What kind of scale you using, bruh?

My conception is that there are three moral boundaries that can be breached, each justifying different levels of response.

The first moral boundary is transgressed by behavior I would consider immoral, but isn't directly impacting someone else. So for instance, me being a lazy shit and not keeping up with my responsibilities as a student as well as I should be would fall into this category.

The second moral boundary is transgressed by directly negatively impacting someone else's life intentionally, but not an act of violence. That would be what these assholes are doing.

The third moral boundary is crossed by acts of violence that constitute the violation of rights.

Originally posted by dadudemon
What? No way!!!


A 4. 5 is neutral and causes no harm but causes no good. Karmic or actual.


4 causes a bit of harm.

1 is mass genocide.



What kind of scale you using, bruh?

Scale of bad person to good person. people who commit mass genocide or are saints belong on a completely different list

They are scum

Yes it is

Sounds just like the Satanists looking attention

Originally posted by dadudemon
What? No way!!!


A 4. 5 is neutral and causes no harm but causes no good. Karmic or actual.


4 causes a bit of harm.

1 is mass genocide.



What kind of scale you using, bruh? to be fair to silent. Id argue that if they had the ability to, alot of them would commit mass genocide. So from a good/bad morality view they're not too much better imho.

Originally posted by Raptor22
to be fair to silent. Id argue that if they had the ability to, alot of them would commit mass genocide. So from a good/bad morality view they're not too much better imho.
Maybe maybe not. They seem more like the type that would celebrate if someone else murdered people they morally disagree with, but they seem like they wouldn't want to get their hands dirty themselves since that'd make them morally impure in their view.

They think soliders being killed by IEDs is punishment from God, wouldn't take much for people like that to think killing the unholy is doing God's work.

The only things likely stopping them is that murder is illegal and most of them probably don't have the intestinal fortitude.

I think they believe the shit they say.

I would not be terribly upset if they found themselves in a tornado's path.

Didn't one of the female members of the family have a child when she was just 15 or something like that, and nobody from the church has spoken about it 'cos it means by their rules she's going to Hell and they'd rather not answer questions about it?

Originally posted by Emperordmb
I think they believe what they say.

I also support their right to do what they do, even though I find them detestable.

As a Christian I actually probably find them more reprehensible than the average person, because not only do I look at them and think "oh their views and behavior are utterly reprehensible," but I also have to look at them and realize "Oh ****, some people are going to associate me with them and go 'SeE tHiS Is WhAt alL cHrIStIanS aRe lIkE!!!'"

Well your pedestalizing of the Bible over other books lends tacit support for nutcase organizations like The Westboro Baptist Church.

Similar to moderate Muslims lending tacit support to homicidal maniac interpretations of Islam like ISIS.

It's better to just say, "The hell with divine revelation all together" so as not to lend any support to destructive interpretations. Because as you should know, you have to do a lot of cherry picking and mental gymnastics to avoid such dangerous interpretations. Not surprisingly there are nearly infinite denominations of Christianity because they pick and choose what to emphasize. So why do you need a holy book at all?

bVV2Zk88beY

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
bVV2Zk88beY

IIRC, this was the gal in the protests that I had a crush on. I remember when she left, too. I thought, "Now's my chance!" And then I realized that she probably thinks Mormons are just 1 or 2 levels about the WBC on the crazy-church-o-meter.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Well your pedestalizing of the Bible over other books lends tacit support for nutcase organizations like The Westboro Baptist Church.

Similar to moderate Muslims lending tacit support to homicidal maniac interpretations of Islam like ISIS.

It's better to just say, "The hell with divine revelation all together" so as not to lend any support to destructive interpretations. Because as you should know, you have to do a lot of cherry picking and mental gymnastics to avoid such dangerous interpretations. Not surprisingly there are nearly infinite denominations of Christianity because they pick and choose what to emphasize. So why do you need a holy book at all?


I've been saying this about mass media propaganda techniques forever.


Yes, your pr/marketing/psychology skills can sell pocket fishing rods. They can also give rise to the fourth Reich.

Better to just ban targeting the public with propaganda campaigns all together, and demand nothing less then absolute transparency from the media and those in Power.

Originally posted by cdtm
I've been saying this about mass media propaganda techniques forever.


Yes, your pr/marketing/psychology skills can sell pocket fishing rods. They can also give rise to the fourth Reich.

Better to just ban targeting the public with propaganda campaigns all together, and demand nothing less then absolute transparency from the media and those in Power.

Uh, are you suggesting banning advertising? That ain't gonna fly in 'Murica..

Nor should it.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Uh, are you suggesting banning advertising? That ain't gonna fly in 'Murica..

Deceptive or manipulative tactics in advertising, yes.

Originally posted by cdtm
Deceptive or manipulative tactics in advertising, yes.

Well, I couldn't agree more, but that would eliminate about 90+% of advertising.

Originally posted by cdtm
Deceptive or manipulative tactics in advertising, yes.

That's already law in the US.

We have a ton of them: state and federal level.


https://www.classlawgroup.com/consumer-protection/false-advertising/laws/

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
bVV2Zk88beY

She's a QT; would smash.

Good for her on getting out of that cult though.

So much respect for women rob

Originally posted by Robtard
She's a QT; would smash.

Good for her on getting out of that cult though.

Absolutely lovely.

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
So much respect for women rob

Oh no, I made similar comments that they did (Rob and Whirly).


I care about what you think. Did I mess up or was I disrespectful in my comments? Be honest.

Originally posted by dadudemon
IIRC, this was the gal in the protests that I had a crush on. I remember when she left, too. I thought, "Now's my chance!" And then I realized that she probably thinks Mormons are just 1 or 2 levels about the WBC on the crazy-church-o-meter.

Are you Mormon?

(You seemed respectful, tbh)

Originally posted by Putinbot1
They are scum Keep in mind the "church" is just his extended family who are brainwashed from an early age. It's not their fault they were born into a bizarre familial cult. Have a little compassion.

They are disgusting. But so long as they remain non violent free speech is free speech

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Are you Mormon?

(You seemed respectful, tbh)


Yes, but agnostic is the best label for me.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yes, but agnostic is the best label for me.

So why not shed the Mormon label all together?

Keep in mind:

= Agnosticism has to do with knowledge or lack of knowledge.
= Atheism has to do with belief or unbelief.
= Therefore it's possible to be both agnostic and atheist.

Westboro baptist church is probably controlled opposition probably funded just to make Christians look bad.

Originally posted by Deadline
Westboro baptist church is probably controlled opposition probably funded just to make Christians look bad.

Nice conspiracy theory, but no.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
bVV2Zk88beY

I have yet to talk to a single Christian who doesn't wholeheartedly condemn the westboro baptist church.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
I have yet to talk to a single Christian who doesn't wholeheartedly condemn the westboro baptist church.

What is it that you think that's supposed to prove?

My own family and thousands of others here in the Bible Belt believe a lot of similar things to the WBC. They may not get picket signs and stand on street corners shouting "God Hates F@gs" and various other superstitious nonsense, but their line of thinking is similar and they get it from the Bible. And presumably you, too, hold the Bible in high esteem, am I correct?

The question is, "Why?"

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
What is it that you think that's supposed to prove?
Nothing more than the point that you would not accept me citing the most virtuous example of Christians as a fair and accurate representation of what Christians as a whole are like, so I don't see any reason for you to reasonably expect anyone to do the same here with your example.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
And presumably you, too, hold the Bible in high esteem, am I correct?

The question is, "Why?"
If you're honestly curious, I could give you a tldr in PMs when I have the time. I tend to be rather guarded about who I delve into the specifics of something so personal to me in a place as toxic than the internet be.

Despite our disagreements and your obvious contempt for religion, you aren't a troll who would use anything I say to club me over the head with something obviously important to me for the sake of getting under my skin, and you aren't someone who would... I don't know... stalk me around the internet trying to provoke me to get a rise out of me. So I'd be willing to give you a short explanation when I'm less busy than I currently am at the moment.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Nothing more than the point that you would not accept me citing the most virtuous example of Christians as a fair and accurate representation of what Christians as a whole are like, so I don't see any reason for you to reasonably expect anyone to do the same here with your example.


If you're honestly curious, I could give you a tldr in PMs when I have the time. I tend to be rather guarded about who I delve into the specifics of something so personal to me in a place as toxic than the internet be.

Despite our disagreements and your obvious contempt for religion, you aren't a troll who would use anything I say to club me over the head with something obviously important to me for the sake of getting under my skin, and you aren't someone who would... I don't know... stalk me around the internet trying to provoke me to get a rise out of me. So I'd be willing to give you a short explanation when I'm less busy than I currently am at the moment.

You're usually an eloquent poster, so I am genuinely curious to know why. And if your ideas are good enough you shouldn't be afraid to share them. Maybe you should see if they withstand scrutiny? So I'd rather you do it here in the marketplace of ideas, but if you must yeah, I guess you can PM me.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Nice conspiracy theory, but no.

Credibility booster.

It's not controlled opposition if no one believes it.

Originally posted by Deadline
Westboro baptist church is probably controlled opposition probably funded just to make Christians look bad.

Could be.


I'm suspicious that over half of rage producing content is just Twitter trolls, who the media cover seriously. A good chunk of the rest on both sides probably is some form of controlled opposition.


Of course, plenty of rank and files really are that bad, but they're on the fringes imo..

Originally posted by Emperordmb
I have yet to talk to a single Christian who doesn't wholeheartedly condemn the westboro baptist church.

There is a real profile in courage. They do not disagree with them on theology, they just do not like that they are so open about their beliefs, because it makes Christians look bad.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
What is it that you think that's supposed to prove?

My own family and thousands of others here in the Bible Belt believe a lot of similar things to the WBC. They may not get picket signs and stand on street corners shouting "God Hates F@gs" and various other superstitious nonsense, but their line of thinking is similar and they get it from the Bible. And presumably you, too, hold the Bible in high esteem, am I correct?

The question is, "Why?"

I get your angle, but I think you're being a bit unfair here. Religion is in the end what the individual takes out of it. For some they choose to focus on something ugly like "God hates f**s", some others choose to focus on something beautiful like "love thy neighbor"; even if he is gay or Muslim or a gay Muslim. The WBC chooses to focus on all the ugly and they take it to the nth.

It's nigh impossible to live your life according to everything in the bible, especially in a modern society where antiquated laws like stoning your daughter just won't fly; nor should you want to.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
So why not shed the Mormon label all together?

Religion and theism is nuanced and personal (you definitely know this so don't . To shed the LDS label is unnecessary because I believe that all theists, from a theosophical perspective, MUST be agnostic because the requirement of "faith" implies agnosticism. I find simple and long-time issues to be readily addressed in the LDS religion such as the Problem of Evil and the concepts of eternity. It also fits better into a multiverse, imo, than other religions. It has its problems, though.



In order to move from agnosticism to gnosticism, you must possess Objective Truth on the level of omniscience. The same is true for strong atheism which most atheists frown on (very few atheists besides ignorant edgelords will take this position because it is philosophically untenable). If you're omniscient, you're indistinguishable, functionally, from a deity and it becomes silly at that point to have that level of Knowledge requirement to take a solid state on a gnostic position. It's better to avoid this and just deal in levels of knowledge and uncertainty. Some prefer the ignostic label, most are on the atheist to theist scale (with a dash of agnosticism or two heaping scoops of it).

Weak atheism is agnostic atheism. Most atheists prefer just the atheist labels but labels are bullshit or too general unless you explore what the label means.

The best label for me is agnostic theist. The simple label is agnostic.


If I ever made the leap to plain atheism (weak atheism), I'd probably still practice religion of some sort for the psychological benefits behind it. I do know a man at work who does that.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
What is it that you think that's supposed to prove?

My own family and thousands of others here in the Bible Belt believe a lot of similar things to the WBC. They may not get picket signs and stand on street corners shouting "God Hates F@gs" and various other superstitious nonsense, but their line of thinking is similar and they get it from the Bible. And presumably you, too, hold the Bible in high esteem, am I correct?

The question is, "Why?"

I agree with the point you're making, here. Southern Baptists really really love to say you're going to hell for the gayism stuff.

Many Mormons, contrary to their own damn religious teachings, get on their self-righteous soapboxes, too. It's insufferable and cringey, imo.

Originally posted by dadudemon
If I ever made the leap to plain atheism (weak atheism), I'd probably still practice religion of some sort for the psychological benefits behind it. I do know a man at work who does that.

Meditation (mindfulness, loving-kindness, etc.). The only "religious" practice that doesn't require the practitioner to accept any ridiculous claims on "faith." Plus (and this is a big plus), its psychological benefits are backed up by science.


Originally posted by Robtard
I get your angle, but I think you're being a bit unfair here. Religion is in the end what the individual takes out of it. For some they choose to focus on something ugly like "God hates f**s", some others choose to focus on something beautiful like "love thy neighbor"; even if he is gay or Muslim or a gay Muslim. The WBC chooses to focus on all the ugly and they take it to the nth.


It's actually not being unfair, Rob. And you yourself even pointed out why...


Originally posted by Robtard
...antiquated laws like stoning your daughter just won't fly; nor should you want to.

The point is that if we (as people and individuals) decide what's worth holding onto in the religious books, then what is the point of having them anyway? Especially when there will always be the intolerant nonsense there to be "rebooted" (so to speak) and continue to prevent moral progress? This idea of revelation is what's dangerous, that these books are somehow special and should be put on a pedestal so that they're not allowed to be altered or edited (even though ironically in their long history they were written, re-written, edited, entire books removed, excluded, etc, etc.). These awful holy book passages will always be there to establish dangerous dogma. And it is dogma that is the real enemy, unwillingness to change and improve because "God established the way it's supposed to be."

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Nice conspiracy theory, but no.

That doesn't neccesarily prove anything, but there is a conspiracy to destroy Christians and Conservatives. So maybe she is maybe she isn't but it looks like controlled opposition to me.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
You just proved my point. Of course there will always be intolerance without it being in "God's Word," but just like you said, it solidifies it and makes it doctrine, unalterable, even "righteous." And that's far more dangerous. Like slave owners using the Bible to justify their cruelty to slaves.

But still we moved beyond slave ownership, despite the bible condoning it.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
You just proved my point. Of course there will always be intolerance without it being in "God's Word," but just like you said, it solidifies it and makes it doctrine, unalterable, even "righteous." And that's far more dangerous. Like slave owners using the Bible to justify their cruelty to slaves.

Whatever. Load of rubbish, you can just create another doctrine. Communism killed ALOT of people.

Sick of this lets bash religion rubbish. No I'm not Christian and I don't think they're perfect either but they're not the problem.

No reason to have a meltdown, Deadline. We're having a friendly convo.

Originally posted by Robtard
No reason to have a meltdown, Deadline. We're having a friendly convo.

The last time I checked the thread doesn't have anything to do with my having a meltdown, so don't try to change the subject. You're having a....'friendly' discussion about an important issue.

You just blew up on PL, when the convo was friendly. Calm down, dude.

Originally posted by Robtard
You just blew up on PL, when the convo was friendly. Calm down, dude.

I'm kinda alright actually. Obvioulsy I'm irritated but I just think you're trying to make something about it because you generaly don't seem to know what you're talking about.

Originally posted by Robtard
But still we moved beyond slave ownership, despite the bible condoning it.

Yeah, but the Bible was an obstacle in that bit of progress. The slave owners of the south were on the winning side of that theological debate.

Originally posted by Deadline
Westboro baptist church is probably controlled opposition probably funded just to make Christians look bad. Originally posted by Deadline
That doesn't neccesarily prove anything, but there is a conspiracy to destroy Christians and Conservatives. So maybe she is maybe she isn't but it looks like controlled opposition to me.

Originally posted by Eternal Idol

It's like he's trying a No True Scotsman

The WBC are authentic and they're not the only Christians or Christian group who hold similar beliefs; they're just one of the loudest so you hear about them.

eg Last time I went to a Church (I was suckered into going) about 17 years ago, the preacher took the time to specifically condemn homosexuality. Of all the sins, why just that one, dude?

Originally posted by Deadline
Whatever. Load of rubbish, you can just create another doctrine. Communism killed ALOT of people.

Sounds like some "whataboutism" there, deflecting the argument. Communism under Stalin is a different issue and it would certainly derail the thread, but you brought it up randomly, so in short millions died in that supremely awful situation because of unyielding dedication to the ideology, very much like a religion. Again, like I said before: the real enemy is dogma. It's often falsely claimed that atheism is evil because Stalin was an atheist, but there's not much reason to think that his atheism was all that relevant. He was dogmatically committed to communism, that was his religion. So much so that he stamped out any small farmers and caused millions upon millions to starve to death.


Originally posted by Deadline
Sick of this lets bash religion rubbish. No I'm not Christian and I don't think they're perfect either but they're not the problem.

Don't think I ever made the claim that religion was "the" problem, like it's the only problem ever. But it is definitely "A" problem. If anything, dogma is "the" problem. It is honestly willful ignorance of what caused horrific events like the Inquisition, witch hunts, Crusades, etc to say that religion is not a problem (they were all religiously-motivated violence). Atheists would have no religious reason to storm across the land raiding, massacring, and pillaging in the case of the Crusades, for example. It took promises of remission of sins and other apocalyptic hopes to motivate that (along with some worldly ambition for power and conquest, of course). And that's to say nothing of Islamic terrorism wreaking havoc in the world and fundamentalist Christianity continually encroaching into policy despite being in flat-out opposition to the Constitution.

It has been secular rationality beating back the efforts of religion (again the Bible was a big obstacle in fighting slavery). You would be hard pressed to find examples of religious dogma keeping itself in check, taking a big-picture view and adjusting its stance. That's not how dogma works. It has taken forces from without (not from within) to mold and reform it to the more secular appearance it has today. The seemingly benign and charming versions of Christianity today are just the vestiges of the fearful and superstitious versions of the past. BUT even the seemingly benign versions of Christian dogma cause problems in unexpected ways: best example is the idea that zygotes have souls. It's preventing stem cell research, a potentially hugely beneficial medical treatment for myriad diseases.

So, sorry to "bash" such cherished religion, but yeah, it needs to happen and I shan't stop.

Oh, I happened upon this yesterday.. lol

Metalheads with kazoos drown out Westboro Baptist Church at Capitol

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Oh, I happened upon this yesterday.. lol

Metalheads with kazoos drown out Westboro Baptist Church at Capitol

Saw that. Loved it.

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/XebxXZYAjUA/hqdefault.jpg

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Sounds like some "whataboutism" there, deflecting the argument. Communism under Stalin is a different issue and it would certainly derail the thread, but you brought it up randomly, so in short millions died in that supremely awful situation because of unyielding dedication to the ideology, very much like a religion. Again, like I said before: the real enemy is dogma.


Yea ok what about Communism under Mao? They killed at least 70 million the figure could go up to 90 million. Or Communists in the 60s and 70s...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2pMkkXIDrM

Look this argument about dogma is just about trying to change the argument you know people are too smart to fall for the relgion-is-the-root-of-evil argument so now you're just saying it's dogma. Dogma is part of religion the questions is what dogma to follow it could be argued it's good to follow certain dogma. You can't seperate dogma from religion so really this is semantics.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech

It's often falsely claimed that atheism is evil because Stalin was an atheist, but there's not much reason to think that his atheism was all that relevant. He was dogmatically committed to communism, that was his religion. So much so that he stamped out any small farmers and caused millions upon millions to starve to death.

If you're going to argue that theism is going to make Christians and other religions do bad things then no it isn't. However the aim of you're argument is to make spiritually inclined religous people (especially Christians) look bad and make athiests seem more rational and civilized. Not sure you're going to win that argument especially when the concept of atheism doesn't make sense.


Originally posted by Patient_Leech

Don't think I ever made the claim that religion was "the" problem, like it's the only problem ever. But it is definitely "A" problem. If anything, dogma is "the" problem. It is honestly willful ignorance of what caused horrific events like the Inquisition, witch hunts, Crusades, etc to say that religion is not a problem (they were all religiously-motivated violence).


Sure you did it's just semantics. You're also assuming that when a religous person commits an evil act he's doing it because he's motivated by relgious scripture when he could be just using it as an excuse.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech

Atheists would have no religious reason to storm across the land raiding, massacring, and pillaging in the case of the Crusades, for example. It took promises of remission of sins and other apocalyptic hopes to motivate that (along with some worldly ambition for power and conquest, of course). And that's to say nothing of Islamic terrorism wreaking havoc in the world and fundamentalist Christianity continually encroaching into policy despite being in flat-out opposition to the Constitution.


Sure they would...Communists. It's a really simplistics argument human beings will always create excuses to kill one another you don't need religion. Eventhough I think you can brainwash people with religion for the most part I think people use relgion as an excuse. Ok you want to talk about Islamic terrorism. Ok fine how about...

British Intelligence creating The Saudi Royal Family
CIA creating mujhideen
FBI creating terror plots so they can arrest people
MI6 and Al-mujiroun

The reason why Islamic terroism is so bad is because of Western Intelligence agencies. See there you again with you're simplistic reasoning. In a lot of cases it's a lot more complicated than just religion.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech

It has been secular rationality beating back the efforts of religion (again the Bible was a big obstacle in fighting slavery). You would be hard pressed to find examples of religious dogma keeping itself in check, taking a big-picture view and adjusting its stance. That's not how dogma works. It has taken forces from without (not from within) to mold and reform it to the more secular appearance it has today. The seemingly benign and charming versions of Christianity today are just the vestiges of the fearful and superstitious versions of the past. BUT even the seemingly benign versions of Christian dogma cause problems in unexpected ways: best example is the idea that zygotes have souls. It's preventing stem cell research, a potentially hugely beneficial medical treatment for myriad diseases.

So, sorry to "bash" such cherished religion, but yeah, it needs to happen and I shan't stop.

I don't think it has anything to with secular. It's about good or bad. Good Christians will find an excuse to use The Bible to help people bad Christians will find an excuse to hurt people. You should watch this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJQjpG-lGY4

There's planety of scientific evidence that suggest that the supernatural is real. I don't think the zygote issue is about helping people I suspect like abortion there is a sinister agenda behind it.


You can bash it all you want I just got a bit fed up. Reilgion isn't going anywhere getting rid of religion is like trying to get rid of music. It's not happening because it's something fundemental to most humans. Also atheism is irrational and obvioulsy theism can be a stronger force for good.

To be blunt: cults are bad. Even really big cults with millions of people. Even if it's not a religion, even if it's a belief in communism, you're part of a cult. You're brainwashed into believing something. It doesn't have to specifically be a god.

These things can bring people together, but they can also cause great harm. The question is the harm worth the good?

And I think people know we'll never be truly free of religion. Or racism, or sexism, or any kind of hatred.

Unless we pull some "Equilibrium" type shit and give people drugs to mess with their emotions. We'd have gun-kata tho to compensate.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Oh, I happened upon this yesterday.. lol

Metalheads with kazoos drown out Westboro Baptist Church at Capitol

Nice. Mungo Jerry would be proud of their kazoo-ing

Oh heres evidence that Christians are persecuted, theres a lot of proof but heres just a little. Not helping Christian refugees.

https://www.cfr.org/blog/united-states-bars-christian-not-muslim-refugees-syria

Covington kids demonized because they're Christian.

https://acton.org/publications/transatlantic/2019/01/22/why-media-lynched-covington-kids-and-why-theyll-do-it-again

Oh and Jason Kessler may have been a Leftist.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4743446/dinesh-dsouza-exposes-jason-kessler-richard-spencer

Also look up Cointelpro intellgence agencies start up fake organizations to make certain denominations or people look bad all the time that was in the 60's but it still goes on today.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO

Originally posted by Robtard
It's like he's trying a No True Scotsman

The WBC are authentic and they're not the only Christians or Christian group who hold similar beliefs; they're just one of the loudest so you hear about them.

eg Last time I went to a Church (I was suckered into going) about 17 years ago, the preacher took the time to specifically condemn homosexuality. Of all the sins, why just that one, dude?

I don't think so, just wondering why you're targeting Christians.

Originally posted by Deadline
Dogma is part of religion the questions is what dogma to follow it could be argued it's good to follow certain dogma. You can't seperate dogma from religion so really this is semantics.
Originally posted by Surtur
To be blunt: cults are bad. Even really big cults with millions of people. Even if it's not a religion, even if it's a belief in communism, you're part of a cult. You're brainwashed into believing something. It doesn't have to specifically be a god.

These things can bring people together, but they can also cause great harm. The question is the harm worth the good?

Yup. There's definitely dogmas other than those in religions. Political cults like North Korea for example. It's definitely not a rational society because the people are brainwashed to think their leaders are deities.



Originally posted by Deadline
You're also assuming that when a religous person commits an evil act he's doing it because he's motivated by relgious scripture when he could be just using it as an excuse.

Lol, no. I'm saying that when religious people say they're doing it for religious reasons, I take them at their word. Especially when I know such a belief to be common or documented or within the certain holy book, etc.

Have you ever been religious, Deadline? Do you know what it's like? I have been, and when you're within it, it's very real to you.


Originally posted by Deadline
Sure they would...Communists. It's a really simplistics argument human beings will always create excuses to kill one another you don't need religion. Eventhough I think you can brainwash people with religion for the most part I think people use relgion as an excuse. Ok you want to talk about Islamic terrorism. Ok fine how about...

British Intelligence creating The Saudi Royal Family
CIA creating mujhideen
FBI creating terror plots so they can arrest people
MI6 and Al-mujiroun

The reason why Islamic terroism is so bad is because of Western Intelligence agencies. See there you again with you're simplistic reasoning. In a lot of cases it's a lot more complicated than just religion.

I would never deny corruption. It's rampant. And awful. But it doesn't contradict anything I've said. I never said religion was the only reason people find to kill each other.



Originally posted by Deadline
I don't think it has anything to with secular. It's about good or bad. Good Christians will find an excuse to use The Bible to help people bad Christians will find an excuse to hurt people.


Who is being simplistic again?



Originally posted by Deadline
Also atheism is irrational and obvioulsy theism can be a stronger force for good.

Awesome assertion. But it's wrong. Atheism is married to rationality. If there's not a good reason to believe something, then an atheist does not believe it. The same is not said for the religious/theists. They believe things on "faith," meaning there isn't good or obvious reason to believe something (in some cases there's even compelling evidence to the contrary), but it's actually virtuous to do so anyway.



Lol, You just made me feel like the guy on this meme...

https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/157/796/392f.jpg

I always did find the "without The Bible, people wouldn't know right from wrong" argument to be silly.

Originally posted by Deadline
Also atheism is irrational and obvioulsy theism can be a stronger force for good.

And on the second part of this: I will fully admit that you could probably invent a dogma that would be a great force for good (something like, "People outside this country need help because they are inferior". That would no doubt create an outpouring of help for foreign countries in need. I've been on medical mission trips with my dad to foreign countries and I absolutely loved and admired the desire to help poorer people who were much less fortunate with medical concerns. I just ignored all the Jesus talk to help save their "souls." So yes, that is a force for good, but it's not something that can only be accomplished by religious believers. And non-believers wouldn't waste time and resources on Jesus talk nonsense.


Originally posted by Robtard
I always did find the "without The Bible, people wouldn't know right from wrong" argument to be silly.

Because it is silly. Morality evolved like everything else. We had to cooperate with one another. It is in our best interest not to steal or fight or murder because we don't want to live in a world where it exists.

Originally posted by Robtard
I always did find the "without The Bible, people wouldn't know right from wrong" argument to be silly.

Mormons believe we have a natural tendency towards righteousness before we are born and things like genetics and experiences twist that natural goodness into something bad.

Which is also why we think "the sins of the children are upon their father's head" is important. Everyone is accountable for their actions (who can be held accountable). But parents also are responsible and accountable for their children's rearing.

Originally posted by Robtard
I always did find the "without The Bible, people wouldn't know right from wrong" argument to be silly.
Especially since Genesis suggests man has an inherent moral compass

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Especially since Genesis suggests man has an inherent moral compass

That's interesting. What verse?

So we all agree Deadline guy is silly.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
That's interesting. What verse?

The oldest Judeo-Christian story, of course:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+3%3A5&version=ESV


It's the mythical consequence of eating the "fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil."

There's been studies with infants who are shown animal characters, where one acts in a simple yet nice manner and the other acts in a simple yet mean manner. The vast majority of babies will reach for the nice (aka good) animal when presented the opportunity.

Originally posted by dadudemon
The oldest Judeo-Christian story, of course:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+3%3A5&version=ESV


It's the mythical consequence of eating the "fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil."

Oh, right, of course.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Especially since Genesis suggests man has an inherent moral compass

Cool story. What about sociopaths? I guess god just forgot to install their consciences. You know how I know you do not even believe that? Because if you did, there would be no reason to teach children right from wrong, they would just know it.

Originally posted by dadudemon
The oldest Judeo-Christian story, of course:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+3%3A5&version=ESV


It's the mythical consequence of eating the "fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil." the origonal version in the epic of Gilgamesh is more exciting tbh. Those Mesopatanians had it locked down.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Cool story. What about sociopaths? I guess god just forgot to install their consciences. You know how I know you do not even believe that? Because if you did, there would be no reason to teach children right from wrong, they would just know it.

They're possessed by a demon.

Duh.

Nah come on, intellectually honest time, the WBC are noticeably worse than the Satanist edgelords

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Nah come on, intellectually honest time, the WBC are noticeably worse than the Satanist edgelords

Yeah, okay, you got me there.

(appologies to Emp, the quote tags f#ck up on me all the time so I have to copy and paste and forgot to remove his name, that first quote is by Eon. It wouldn't let me edit)

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
(appologies to Emp, the quote tags f#ck up on me all the time so I have to copy and paste and forgot to remove his name, that first quote is by Eon. It wouldn't let me edit)
KEK okay good, for a moment I was like "Wtf"

^ Does that happen to anyone else?? It's annoying as shit.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Cool story. What about sociopaths? I guess god just forgot to install their consciences. You know how I know you do not even believe that? Because if you did, there would be no reason to teach children right from wrong, they would just know it.

The thing is, people DO seem to instinctively know right from wrong. I mean, even at my ripe old age, I can remember recoiling at things as a kid I just knew were off, without anyone ever having taught me they were wrong.



They know, but they just don't care. (Can one be "taught" to care? That's the eternal question that makes us keep trying to instill values, isn't it?)

Originally posted by Patient_Leech





Lol, no. I'm saying that when religious people say they're doing it for religious reasons, I take them at their word. Especially when I know such a belief to be common or documented or within the certain holy book, etc.


This is what happens when you can't make a strong argument you start trying to backtrack. Look it's an assumption to assume that people are doing things primarily because of their religion. There are lots of other factors in play, for example if somebody where to kill a religous persons children you would assume that the person goes on a rampage for relgious reasons when it can just be revenge. Please use some common sense, other factors can be in play like economics. Also you have to bare in mind religous people are not 100% that their beliefs are correct so they choose to believe in it.



Originally posted by Patient_Leech

Have you ever been religious, Deadline? Do you know what it's like? I have been, and when you're within it, it's very real to you.



Whatever, you sound like an evangelical Christian trying to use emotion to get your point across instead of logic and facts.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech


I would never deny corruption. It's rampant. And awful. But it doesn't contradict anything I've said. I never said religion was the only reason people find to kill each other.



Yea but you're primarily trying to put the blame on religion. The point is that Western intelligence agencies are the primary cause of Islamic Terrorism not Islam.




Originally posted by Patient_Leech


Who is being simplistic again?



Feel free to prove it then.


Originally posted by Patient_Leech

Awesome assertion. But it's wrong. Atheism is married to rationality. If there's not a good reason to believe something, then an atheist does not believe it. The same is not said for the religious/theists. They believe things on "faith," meaning there isn't good or obvious reason to believe something (in some cases there's even compelling evidence to the contrary), but it's actually virtuous to do so anyway.


Nope I'm correct let me break it down. If you want to argue about a diety called Zeus who is an old white guy that lives on a mountain and if you want to argue about Jesus dying on the cross for our sins then you have a point about the specific aspects of certain faiths. But you are incorrect in the idea that the existance of gods are illogical.

You can deduce that beings like gods probably exist just by looking at nature. Bacteria exists, insects exist, animals exist and humans exist it stands to reason that more likely than not other beings out there more powerful than human beings exist. The reason why you come to that conclusion is because you can already observe a hierarchy of lifeforms that already exsist. So it's like this 2=bacteria, 4=insects, 6=animals, 8=humans whats the next number? The next number is probably 10. It might not be but it probably is. So belief in gods is based on inference while Atheism is based on.....I dunno i guess some strange vendetta you have with Christians.

You're also kinda immature anyone whos lived long enough and has read enough history knows you can't make sweeping generlizations like athiesm is married to rationality because you're dealing with humans, all humans can be irrational. The fact that Stalin and Mao killed so many people proves this, also I could talk about in the scientfic community athiests are ruining research into the supernatural because as soon as tests show that the supernatural exists they reject the findings.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
And on the second part of this: I will fully admit that you could probably invent a dogma that would be a great force for good (something like, "People outside this country need help because they are inferior". That would no doubt create an outpouring of help for foreign countries in need. I've been on medical mission trips with my dad to foreign countries and I absolutely loved and admired the desire to help poorer people who were much less fortunate with medical concerns. I just ignored all the Jesus talk to help save their "souls." So yes, that is a force for good, but it's not something that can only be accomplished by religious believers. And non-believers wouldn't waste time and resources on Jesus talk nonsense.


Common sense indicates that if you are trying to do good and you believe that a divine force is helping you you're going to be more motivated than if you didn't. You could also maybe argue vice versa but history doesn't show that...Communists.

There you go again with you're bashing of Christians. I just showed you a video of Communists who wanted to kill 25 millions Americans. I'm not worried about Christians attacking me. You just have this obssession with them, you have Christophobia.

Originally posted by cdtm
The thing is, people DO seem to instinctively know right from wrong. I mean, even at my ripe old age, I can remember recoiling at things as a kid I just knew were off, without anyone ever having taught me they were wrong.



They know, but they just don't care. (Can one be "taught" to care? That's the eternal question that makes us keep trying to instill values, isn't it?)

Emphasis on seem. The appearance of design is not necessarily evidence of design. Similarly, the appearance of instinct could be a confluence of environmental and social factors.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Emphasis on seem. The appearance of design is not necessarily evidence of design. Similarly, the appearance of instinct could be a confluence of environmental and social factors.

Well...uhhhh...


You could argue that it is necessary that humans have tribe-preserving altruistic behaviors built into their genes in order to be as successful of a species that we are.

Exobiologists theorize that any species that is capable of interstellar travel will, as a necessity, require to have this "unit altruism" in their programming to assemble the resources and mind-power necessary for interstellar travel.

It's better to look at is like a tautology: an altruistic, social species is an altruistic social species.

It doesn't just seem like we are programmed to be this way. We ARE this way. It's in our basic programming to be this way. We are designed specifically to be this way because it is the result of millions of years of evolution.

Originally posted by Deadline
You can deduce that beings like gods probably exist just by looking at nature. Bacteria exists, insects exist, animals exist and humans exist it stands to reason that more likely than not other beings out there more powerful than human beings exist. The reason why you come to that conclusion is because you can already observe a hierarchy of lifeforms that already exsist. So it's like this 2=bacteria, 4=insects, 6=animals, 8=humans whats the next number? The next number is probably 10. It might not be but it probably is. So belief in gods is based on inference while Atheism is based on.....I dunno i guess some strange vendetta you have with Christians.

The problem with your example is that it improperly presumes there is a higher-order without evidence. Metaphorically speaking, pointing that out is what Atheism is.



Originally posted by Deadline
You're also kinda immature anyone whos lived long enough and has read enough history knows you can't make sweeping generlizations like athiesm is married to rationality because you're dealing with humans, all humans can be irrational. The fact that Stalin and Mao killed so many people proves this, also I could talk about in the scientfic community athiests are ruining research into the supernatural because as soon as tests show that the supernatural exists they reject the findings.

Mao and Stalin were not inspired to kill people by Atheism, but by Fascism, which is an ideology as dangerous as religion. Science is the study of nature, and the supernatural definitionally exists outside of nature, and therefore cannot be observed by science, so I have no idea what you are going on about there.



Originally posted by Deadline
Common sense indicates that if you are trying to do good and you believe that a divine force is helping you you're going to be more motivated than if you didn't. You could also maybe argue vice versa but history doesn't show that...Communists.

Conversely, common sense would indicate that one would be more motivated to commit heinous acts if he believe a divine being wanted him to do so. Congratulations on defeating your own argument.



Originally posted by Deadline
There you go again with you're bashing of Christians. I just showed you a video of Communists who wanted to kill 25 millions Americans. I'm not worried about Christians attacking me. You just have this obssession with them, you have Christophobia.

More acts of domestic terrorism are committed by Christian-identified extremists in the United States than any other group. Our prisons are disproportionately filled with "good" Christians.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Emphasis on seem. The appearance of design is not necessarily evidence of design. Similarly, the appearance of instinct could be a confluence of environmental and social factors.

Well, you can look at studies that prove humans have instinctual behavior.

For example, there are people who are blind, thar puff out their chest in a display of pride. Something clearly impossible for them to have learned through observation/environment.



And if I may insert my own conjecture: Is not to be human, to feel?

If feelings are who we are, can one learn to feel in a specific way?


Can you "learn" to be happy? Or are you simply "are", or "are not"?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The problem with your example is that it improperly presumes there is a higher-order without evidence. Metaphorically speaking, pointing that out is what Atheism is.


No it doesn't improperly do anything because you come to that conclusion from observing nature. Now explain how that observation is wrong.





Originally posted by Adam_PoE

Mao and Stalin were not inspired to kill people by Atheism, but by Fascism, which is an ideology as dangerous as religion.

They were Communists, communism is an athiestic belief system. No Htler was a fascist, Mao and Stalin were Communists...er that's why Mao founded The Communist Party. I see how you atheists have started updating you're arguments. One of the things that Communism teaches is that religion is bad and that was one of their justifications for killing Christians.

However it just shows that you don't have to be spiritual to be irrational and evil.


Originally posted by Adam_PoE

Science is the study of nature, and the supernatural definitionally exists outside of nature, and therefore cannot be observed by science, so I have no idea what you are going on about there.


Stop trying to play semantics if that were the case people wouldn't be doing research on telepathy on NDES



Originally posted by Adam_PoE

Conversely, common sense would indicate that one would be more motivated to commit heinous acts if he believe a divine being wanted him to do so. Congratulations on defeating your own argument.


Which is what I said actually, maybe I should underline it for you. However history doesn't prove that. Communists.



Originally posted by Adam_PoE

More acts of domestic terrorism are committed by Christian-identified extremists in the United States than any other group. Our prisons are disproportionately filled with "good" Christians.

Load of rubbish, probably more liberal propaganda. Oh and the FBI don't just create fake Islamic terror plots either they also do it to other groups they do it to. So it's probaly mostly manufactured.

Originally posted by Deadline
No it doesn't improperly do anything because you come to that conclusion from observing nature. Now explain how that observation is wrong.

But people positing a higher-order are not directly observing it, are they? They are presuming it from observing other hierarchies. That makes it an unsupported hypothesis at best. And believing it without sufficient evidence is entirely improper.



Originally posted by Deadline
They were Communists, communism is an athiestic belief system. No Htler was a fascist, Mao and Stalin were Communists...er that's why Mao founded The Communist Party. I see how you atheists have started updating you're arguments. One of the things that Communism teaches is that religion is bad and that was one of their justifications for killing Christians.

However it just shows that you don't have to be spiritual to be irrational and evil.

Communism is not synonymous with Atheism. The American Pilgrims were Communists. The Hippies were also Communists. The former were conservative Christians, and the latter were involved in the New Age Movement. It is almost as if the notion or organizing society in a lateral power structure has nothing to do with whether one believes in a supreme being.



Originally posted by Deadline
Stop trying to play semantics if that were the case people wouldn't be doing research on telepathy on NDES

If telepathy can be observed and reproduced in a laboratory environment, then it is a natural phenomenon, and not supernatural at all.



Originally posted by Deadline
Which is what I said actually, maybe I should underline it for you. However history doesn't prove that. Communists.

Then you agree that it takes religion for otherwise good people to do bad things. Great.



Originally posted by Deadline
Load of rubbish, probably more liberal propaganda. Oh and the FBI don't just create fake Islamic terror plots either they also do it to other groups they do it to. So it's probaly mostly manufactured.

If you believe that, it is no wonder you believe in a god too.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
But people positing a higher-order are not directly observing it, are they? They are presuming it from observing other hierarchies. That makes it an unsupported hypothesis at best. And believing it without sufficient evidence is entirely improper.




Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If telepathy can be observed and reproduced in a laboratory environment, then it is a natural phenomenon, and not supernatural at all.




Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Conversely, common sense would indicate that one would be more motivated to commit heinous acts if he believe a divine being wanted him to do so. Congratulations on defeating your own argument. Originally posted by Deadline
Which is what I said actually, maybe I should underline it for you. However history doesn't prove that. Communists.Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Then you agree that it takes religion for otherwise good people to do bad things. Great.

The FBI created religion in 1912 as a means of dividing people, in order to make them easier to control. Every photo, document, and artifact supposedly predating 1912 is a clever fake designed to implant false memories in the sheeple, just like they did in the 90s with Sinbad and his non-existent genie movie, Shazam.

Westboro members are actually FBI operatives tasked with destabilizing the Christian community, which has consolidated too much political power for THEM.

Great so now I got to debate two people at the same time. See you guys tommorow.

Originally posted by Deadline
Great so now I got to debate two people at the same time. See you guys tommorow.

You're not as powerful as Quan who has taken on around 9 people, at the same time, and was still winning the argument. estahuh


Seriously, that thread exists. It's in the MVF.

What is this imaginary thread, and what do I need to be on to see it?

Originally posted by cdtm
What is this imaginary thread, and what do I need to be on to see it?


I don't know. Ask Quan if he remembers the thread. I tried searching for it because I could have sworn I posted in the thread with the words "holy shit." But the search engine sucks so badly that you cannot search for two words like that. It views that search parameter as "holy||shit" in Java.

Originally posted by Deadline
Great so now I got to debate two people at the same time. See you guys tommorow.

We don't have strength in numbers. We have strength in ideas.


Originally posted by dadudemon
You're not as powerful as Quan who has taken on around 9 people, at the same time, and was still winning the argument. estahuh


Seriously, that thread exists. It's in the MVF.

Was he winning the argument because he kept declaring that he was winning, or was he actually more logically sound?

I haven't seen Part 2 yet, but you know, it's good stuff in case anyone wanted to be on-topic...

xMbfQ117Jts

7T_ok0MaLSQ&ts

Lol@ the usage of children for propaganda purposes. These shitheads.

Adam, what would you consider evidence of a "higher order"?

Is observable behavior in a majority of populations, across different cultures, evidence of natural behavior? For example, observation of "pecking orders" in every known culture.

Originally posted by cdtm
Adam, what would you consider evidence of a "higher order"?

Is observable behavior in a majority of populations, across different cultures, evidence of natural behavior? For example, observation of "pecking orders" in every known culture.

gQfJw82Pc74

Originally posted by Surtur
Lol@ the usage of children for propaganda purposes. These shitheads.

Yeah, it's really sad with the children. They just parrot what the adults say.

Originally posted by Surtur
gQfJw82Pc74

Lamb of God and friends drown out Westboro Baptist morons with an army of kazoos

Kazoos, that's how you know they're meming

Originally posted by cdtm
Adam, what would you consider evidence of a "higher order"?

Is observable behavior in a majority of populations, across different cultures, evidence of natural behavior? For example, observation of "pecking orders" in every known culture.

Observing that hierarchies exist in general tells us nothing about the orders of specific hierarchies. It would be an inductive fallacy to presume that because one can imagine a higher order in a particular class that such an order exists. That is why Deadline's argument based on "observing nature" is wrong.

One more.... BOOM!!

https://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/jan/17/yemen.islam

Hampton-el was described by prosecutors as a skilled bomb-maker. It was hardly surprising. In Afghanistan he fought with the Hezb-i-Islami group of mujahideen, whose training and weaponry were mainly supplied by the CIA.

But according to one American official, concentrating on bin Laden is a mistake. 'The point is not the individuals,' he said last week. 'The point is that we created a whole cadre of trained and motivated people who turned against us. It's a classic Frankenstein's monster situation.'

THink I'll make this the last one..

https://medium.com/@jackiethornhill/how-the-united-states-created-al-qaeda-2bbe129faf57

The Mujahideen, whose name roughly translates to “one engaged in Jihad”, went on to evolve into al-Qaeda, the group infamous for perpetrating the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon which killed 2,996 people and injured over 6,000.

Yeah it's religon that's the problem here.....

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Was he winning the argument because he kept declaring that he was winning, or was he actually more logically sound?

It's Quan, what do you think?

It was both.

1) the WBC is really just a family and their neighbors, not a national KKK/NOI level organization
2) the WBC are no different in their intolerance to Sunni/Shia Islam
3) if the WBC are prepared to suffer the consequences (aka public backlash) for their intolerant views, then they are free to say whatever they want

Originally posted by Deadline
Since they thought religion was stupid they used this a excuse to persecute religous people and China is still doing it today.

Okay, great. They were assholes, probably even sociopaths, but show me the atheist doctrine in the atheist holy book written by no-god that required such brutality and then you'll have an argument.


Originally posted by Deadline
... the fact that Western intelligence agencies are the primary cause not Islam. There would be a problem without them but it wouldn't be anywhere near as bad as it has been.

So yeah, in order for "Western intelligence agencies the primary cause" Islam would still have to have the capacity for causing otherwise good people to do evil.


Originally posted by Deadline
Yeah it's religon that's the problem here.....

(For the record, I'm not denying that we have corruption propping up horrible regimes. Wouldn't surprise me. It probably helps keep the war machine operating.)

Oh, wait, darn. I thought it was just those damn communist atheists that commit massive atrocities, not good righteous Christian conservative capitalists..?



Originally posted by Deadline
I can't quote your post so I'm having to copy and paste

(Glad it's not just me, it's irritating.)



Originally posted by Deadline
BOOM!

https://thebestschools.org/features...rake-interview/

Recently, summarizing your book Science Set Free at a TED talk, you addressed the problem of dogmatic materialism in science, only to have your TED talk banned because of pressure from, ahem, dogmatic materialists. The irony here is rich, with you becoming the victim of the very motions in science that you were criticizing. What's up with that?

Even if I granted you this tiny example is true, it doesn't prove a worldwide conspiracy against evidence for the supernatural. If there was good evidence for the supernatural it would be world news, Christian conservatives would broadcast it all over the place, you'd never hear the end of it. So you're still reaching.



Originally posted by Deadline
Posting some article about what some indivduals think about Islam doesn't refute the fact that Western intelligence agencies are the primary cause not Islam. There would be a problem without them but it wouldn't be anywhere near as bad as it has been.


We don't entirely disagree, but that was not just "some article about what some individuals think about Islam." It was straight from ISIS, it's their online magazine. It's their own fu#king magazine. And in it they broadcast why they hate us and why they fight us. It's not because we have attacked them, it's not because the US has caused war and invaded. I'll spell it out for you: It's because the whole world isn't bowing the knee to Allah. They hate us because we're not Muslims. And believe it or not you can actually read the Quran and see the doctrines that support their stance. Can you acknowledge this, so we can move on? I acknowledged that Western society is contributing to the problem... so we really don't disagree all that much.

In linguistics, meaning is use.

It's the same for group behavior. You don't need written evidence on the evils of Communism, to judge communism doesn't work.

Proponents can cry "No true Scottsman" all they want, the fact is when Communism was attempted, we got what we got.

Science is the study of the observable universe. The notion that science should study things outside of the material world is nonsensical. It is like suggesting one should use an ice cream maker to dig a hole; it is not at all what it is designed to do. BOOM, indeed.

There may not be an Atheist dogma, but most self declared Atheists do seem to share a militant condescension for religious belief.

Expressing hatred of religion to believers isn't going to win any more favors then a religious believer pulpitting about how everyone is going to hell.

Or in other words, one can disagree without being an ass about it.

Originally posted by cdtm
The thing is, people DO seem to instinctively know right from wrong. I mean, even at my ripe old age, I can remember recoiling at things as a kid I just knew were off, without anyone ever having taught me they were wrong.
Like what?

Originally posted by cdtm
There may not be an Atheist dogma, but most self declared Atheists do seem to share a militant condescension for religious belief.

Expressing hatred of religion to believers isn't going to win any more favors then a religious believer pulpitting about how everyone is going to hell.

Or in other words, one can disagree without being an ass about it.

Communism is an atheistic belief system they just don't want to admit it. The reason why they don't want to admit is because they want to point at religous people all day long and then deny that athiests can be just as bad worse.

This is not about reason and logic it's not about theism and atheism and they're no different from people who think you deserve to go to hell forever just because you don't follow their faith. It's simply about wanting to feel you're better than other humans.

Originally posted by NemeBro
Like what?

As a youngun, a bunch of friends caught a jellyfish, and put it on the dock. Then put a 50,000 want floodlight over it, and whooped it up as it cooked like an egg.

I've killed plenty of things that probably have more feeling then a jellyfish. I eat meat. I'm not sure exactly what made me sick to my stomach that day, between the torture or the joy those "friends" felt at it, but I've never felt so disgusted before or since.


Did we feel so different about it, because we were taught differently? As far as I remember, theee guys came from a good home, and had very good parents, who did their best to instill good values..

Originally posted by cdtm
There may not be an Atheist dogma, but most self declared Atheists do seem to share a militant condescension for religious belief.

Expressing hatred of religion to believers isn't going to win any more favors then a religious believer pulpitting about how everyone is going to hell.

Or in other words, one can disagree without being an ass about it.

Ridiculous beliefs are worthy of ridicule. Shame is a tool that works.

Originally posted by cdtm
As a youngun, a bunch of friends caught a jellyfish, and put it on the dock. Then put a 50,000 want floodlight over it, and whooped it up as it cooked like an egg.

I've killed plenty of things that probably have more feeling then a jellyfish. I eat meat. I'm not sure exactly what made me sick to my stomach that day, between the torture or the joy those "friends" felt at it, but I've never felt so disgusted before or since.


Did we feel so different about it, because we were taught differently? As far as I remember, theee guys came from a good home, and had very good parents, who did their best to instill good values..

That you had a different reaction proves that morality is learned. If it was inherent, you all should have had the same reaction. Yours was different, because you were taught differently.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Ridiculous beliefs are worthy of ridicule. Shame is a tool that works.

A punch to the gut would also work.

If shame is a weapon, it's a weapon that indiscriminately targets enemy and innocent bystander (I, myself, have been targeted by a former friend for "ridiculous beliefs". Though not of a religious or political variety.)

The only thing accomplished, was an end to a good friendship.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
That you had a different reaction proves that morality is learned. If it was inherent, you all should have had the same reaction. Yours was different, because you were taught differently.

No, what I said about evolution.






https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-moral-life-of-babies/


https://www.cnn.com/2014/02/12/us/baby-lab-morals-ac360/index.html

Originally posted by cdtm
There may not be an Atheist dogma, but most self declared Atheists do seem to share a militant condescension for religious belief.

Expressing hatred of religion to believers isn't going to win any more favors then a religious believer pulpitting about how everyone is going to hell.

Or in other words, one can disagree without being an ass about it.

How are we being a**holes? What you are interpreting as "militant condescension" is just trying to oppose bad ideas. What other way are we supposed to do that than through conversation?

Everyone should oppose what they feel are bad ideas through conversation. That's what we do here. It's not violence.



Originally posted by dadudemon
No, what I said about evolution.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-moral-life-of-babies/

https://www.cnn.com/2014/02/12/us/baby-lab-morals-ac360/index.html

It's not surprising if there is both a genetic and learned component. Almost everything we know about is like that.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
It's not surprising if there is both a genetic and learned component. Almost everything we know about is like that.



When it comes to ubiquitous human behaviors, it is almost assuredly both genetic and learned.

Oh by the way I'm not finished with you guys yet, I just got fed up with the dishonesty and hypocrisy.

Originally posted by Deadline
Communism is an atheistic belief system they just don't want to admit it. The reason why they don't want to admit is because they want to point at religous people all day long and then deny that athiests can be just as bad worse.Originally posted by Deadline
Oh by the way I'm not finished with you guys yet, I just got fed up with the dishonesty and hypocrisy.

The only hypocrisy here is from you: When a religious person commits violence in the name of their religion (which has actual roots in the religion) it's just because they're a "bad person" (whatever the f#ck that means), but when atheists commit violence it's because of their atheism. So there's much more at play for religious violence. But for atheists it's just the atheism.

That makes no sense and is completely intellectually dishonest.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
The only hypocrisy here is from you: When a religious person commits violence in the name of their religion (which has actual roots in the religion) it's just because they're a "bad person" (whatever the f#ck that means), but when atheists commit violence it's because of their atheism.

That makes no sense and is completely intellectually dishonest.

That's actually not my point. Maybe you better read my posts properly but anyway i'll get to it later.

Originally posted by Deadline
That's actually not my point. Maybe you better read my posts properly but anyway i'll get to it later.

Well, you've strongly implied it, if not directly said it, so maybe you aren't communicating well.

I'm not sensing any desire on your part to budge on even the most basic of intellectual assumptions, so this is getting quite repetitive and boring.

Originally posted by dadudemon


When it comes to ubiquitous human behaviors, it is almost assuredly both genetic and learned.

The fact psychopaths have measurable differences in brain activity implies there is a biological component to morality.

I think one can learn morality, as a concept. I think one can follow morality, because of the recognition that actions have consequences (You don't want to get caught in a murder, for example.)

The part where people give a crap either way, though? A.k.a. empathy? Who can teach a feeling?

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Well, you've strongly implied it, if not directly said it, so maybe you aren't communicating well.


Nope I'm communicating just fine. I explained my stance earlier.

I already stated that religion can make people do bad thing. Not only that you understood that.

Originally posted by Deadline



Common sense indicates that if you are trying to do good and you believe that a divine force is helping you you're going to be more motivated than if you didn't. You could also maybe argue vice versa but history doesn't show that...Communists.



Originally posted by Adam_PoE



Conversely, common sense would indicate that one would be more motivated to commit heinous acts if he believe a divine being wanted him to do so. Congratulations on defeating your own argument.





.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech












You see this is why I don't really want to carry on with this debate you and Adam are both hypocrites. Now you're trying to argue that I said that religion can't make people do bad things when I already explained that and you already saw it. Obvioulsy though in the above example you noted that I admitted that point but you ignored the fact that it could apply to atheism.



Originally posted by Patient_Leech

I'm not sensing any desire on your part to budge on even the most basic of intellectual assumptions, so this is getting quite repetitive and boring.

When you stop playing semantics, dodging points and misrepresenting what I'm saying unpurpose because you're losing maybe it will get interesting. To be quite honest I'm getting fed up with this but we'll see how it goes.


Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Okay, great. They were assholes, probably even sociopaths, but show me the atheist doctrine in the atheist holy book written by no-god that required such brutality and then you'll have an argument.


This is you dodging the point. Why don't you actually go back and read what I said and actually counter my points instead of pretending you didn't see it? You don't think Communism is an athiestic belief system I explained why I think it is, why don't you address the points I made?


Originally posted by Patient_Leech

So yeah, in order for "Western intelligence agencies the primary cause" Islam would still have to have the capacity for causing otherwise good people to do evil.


This is you selectively choosing which part of my argument suits you. You're strawmanning I never said that religion can't make peoiple do bad things what I said was that it's more complicated than that and there are often other factors involved. You want to live in a more peaceful world and you're concern is the violence that religion can cause I'm proving to you that the major contributing factor is Western intelligence agencies, therefore you should be more concerned about that.

To try and make my point clearer....I think both atheism and religion can make people do good and bad things but for the most part there are other factors involved that make people do what they do. However in general I think religion is more beneficial.

My point is that you're a hypocrite because you're arguing that religion can make people do bad but you're giving atheism some unique qualities and you are trying to say that it can't make people do bad. This is a load of rubbish. You're being inconsistent you can't argue that theism can make people do bad then say that theism can't. If you had said that atheism can't make people do bad and theism can't either then we wouldn't have a problem.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech

(For the record, I'm not denying that we have corruption propping up horrible regimes. Wouldn't surprise me. It probably helps keep the war machine operating.)

Oh, wait, darn. I thought it was just those damn communist atheists that commit massive atrocities, not good righteous Christian conservative capitalists..?



You kinda are you're trying to downplay their involvement because you want to blame religion.

More strawman.


Originally posted by Patient_Leech

Even if I granted you this tiny example is true, it doesn't prove a worldwide conspiracy against evidence for the supernatural. If there was good evidence for the supernatural it would be world news, Christian conservatives would broadcast it all over the place, you'd never hear the end of it. So you're still reaching.




Don't give me that crap, I could give you 20 more examples and it wouldn't be good enough. I could dig up more but I can't be bothered. I've had this debate before and actually had an article were somebody specificaly stated that atheists were rejecting the results that proved the paranormal. The fact you're trying to downplay the involvement of Intelligence agencies with Islam despite all the enidence I'm providing indicates this.


Originally posted by Patient_Leech

We don't entirely disagree, but that was not just "some article about what some individuals think about Islam." It was straight from ISIS, it's their online magazine. It's their own fu#king magazine. And in it they broadcast why they hate us and why they fight us. It's not because we have attacked them, it's not because the US has caused war and invaded. I'll spell it out for you: It's because the whole world isn't bowing the knee to Allah. They hate us because we're not Muslims. And believe it or not you can actually read the Quran and see the doctrines that support their stance. Can you acknowledge this, so we can move on? I acknowledged that Western society is contributing to the problem... so we really don't disagree all that much.

Don't get pissy with me it's not my fault you can't read. If you actually tried to comprehend my posts you would know that posting that is a waste of time. You know why? Because what I posted indicates that western inteligence agencies trained and armed the men who became Al-Qaedi and you know that organization evolved into or gave birth to ISIS. So in other words if it wasn't for Western Intelligence agencies ISIS wouldn't exist. He shoots, he scores and that's the game!

Oh and by the way eventhough there are passages in The Quran that talk about killing disbelievers there are also passages that talk about leaving them alone. Also did you know that muslims can get married to Christians and Jews? So in other words there's plenty of reasons in The Quran for him not to want to kill disbelievers but he's choosing to ignore it. See what I mean? It's a rorshach test.

Originally posted by Deadline
Atheism is a concept and since it's a concept you can build a belief system around it.


Atheism is an absence of a thesis. If such thesis is absent from your framework would you say a concept is atheistic? Clearly science should work without the concept of God because supreme qualities are unrelated to its premise. If we admit this most concepts are atheistic even if they are exclusively employed by religious people.

You can build a belief system around nothing?

What does that belief system entail? Do we all just sorta go to Not-Church once a week and pray to not-God and hope he/she/it hears our not-Prayers?

Atheism can't be a belief system because it's only definining trait is not believing in anything.

Originally posted by MythLord
You can build a belief system around nothing?

What does that belief system entail? Do we all just sorta go to Not-Church once a week and pray to not-God and hope he/she/it hears our not-Prayers?

Atheism can't be a belief system because it's only definining trait is not believing in anything.

Technically it's possible. The absence of pain is part of a very westernized belief system and it's, essentially, the advocacy for a non-thing.

Originally posted by Deadline
Nope I'm communicating just fine. I explained my stance earlier.

I already stated that religion can make people do bad thing. Not only that you understood that.

But how long did it take us to get it out of you? You previously said this...


Originally posted by Patient_Leech
It has been secular rationality beating back the efforts of religion (again the Bible was a big obstacle in fighting slavery). You would be hard pressed to find examples of religious dogma keeping itself in check, taking a big-picture view and adjusting its stance. That's not how dogma works. It has taken forces from without (not from within) to mold and reform it to the more secular appearance it has today. The seemingly benign and charming versions of Christianity today are just the vestiges of the fearful and superstitious versions of the past. BUT even the seemingly benign versions of Christian dogma cause problems in unexpected ways: best example is the idea that zygotes have souls. It's preventing stem cell research, a potentially hugely beneficial medical treatment for myriad diseases. Originally posted by Deadline
I don't think it has anything to with secular. It's about good or bad. Good Christians will find an excuse to use The Bible to help people bad Christians will find an excuse to hurt people.

...which does not indicate a nuanced understanding of how dogmatic religion works.



Originally posted by Deadline
My point is that you're a hypocrite because you're arguing that religion can make people do bad but you're giving atheism some unique qualities and you are trying to say that it can't make people do bad.

Okay, I think this is the biggest obstacle here.

Atheism is a lack of a belief. Therefore it's the opposite of dogmatic religious faith. We have no god to appease, no belief in heavenly reward, no 70 virgins, no Jesus returning, etc. Therefore our actions are not religiously motivated in the way that religious actions are. Again using the Crusades as an example, peasants would have had much less reason to get up and go if they didn't believe they needed to help bring about the "end times," clear their sin slate, etc. I don't pray because I'm not religiously motivated to tell God what I would like to have. The religious are motivated to pray, so they do. That's religious belief motivating action.

Another way to explain it... Suppose an Atheist Pope (if such a thing could exist, which it can't) pointed to the Atheist Bible (another thing that couldn't exist) and declared that all atheists must do some task in the name of Science to help infinite food fall from the sky for all the poor people around the world. (It's ridiculous I know, but it makes the point.) Atheists would say, "No, that's stupid and it won't happen." That's because we're not religiously motivated. And of course atheists are susceptible to other corrupting forces like greed, anger, vengeance, etc. But those aren't religious motivations, they're very worldly. Even IF some powerful atheist thought it was his righteous duty to kill all believers that's not because there is an atheist doctrine that says to do that and he's not doing it to gain some otherworldy reward. So yes, I'm claiming atheism is different because it fundamentally is.

This...

Originally posted by MythLord
You can build a belief system around nothing?

What does that belief system entail? Do we all just sorta go to Not-Church once a week and pray to not-God and hope he/she/it hears our not-Prayers?

Atheism can't be a belief system because it's only definining trait is not believing in anything.




Originally posted by MythLord
Don't give me that crap, I could give you 20 more examples and it wouldn't be good enough. I could dig up more but I can't be bothered.


Like I said, if good evidence existed it would be world news. It's not.




Originally posted by MythLord
Because what I posted indicates that western intelligence agencies trained and armed the men who became Al-Qaedi and you know that organization evolved into or gave birth to ISIS. So in other words if it wasn't for Western Intelligence agencies ISIS wouldn't exist. He shoots, he scores and that's the game!

I don't doubt it, we're way too cozy with Saudi Arabia. After all it seems September 11th was a collaborative effort with the Saudis.



Originally posted by MythLord
Oh and by the way eventhough there are passages in The Quran that talk about killing disbelievers there are also passages that talk about leaving them alone. Also did you know that muslims can get married to Christians and Jews? So in other words there's plenty of reasons in The Quran for him not to want to kill disbelievers but he's choosing to ignore it. See what I mean? It's a rorshach test.


Yup, some similar things could be said for the Bible, but that doesn't stop the Westboro Baptist Church (which this thread is actually about) from focusing on the obnoxious shit. Contradictions in holy books exist, but irony is lost on many religious folk. So different denominations focus on what they want to focus on. That's why it's better to throw the holy book out and start from scratch.