The Battle Bar, Our Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy

Started by Darth Sexy3,287 pages
Darth Sexy Restricted

Originally posted by Red Nemesis

Bestiality is wrong for other reasons (animals can't give consent) and minors, by definition, are unable to give consent. If you want to argue that we should lower the age of consent, fine. When should it be? the onset of puberty? That's happening earlier and earlier. AoC = 12? That seems too early. (even for you) The majority of children are unable to make rational (immediate benefit/long term) decisions. They aren't competent to make that decision.


Nope, my argument is that we shouldn't for the reasons you just mentioned. That is my argument for homosexuality. IF you allow homosexuality, why not allow sex with minors? Why not allow other things? Seeing as how we shouldn't allow sex with minors because if we ban it altogether, we wouldn't have questions of under what circumstances it's allowed, and instead focus on the bigger picture of 18+. For homosexuality, I think if you start allowing them legal marriages, you're just going lower and lower.

Drug dealers harm society by committing crimes/being evil etc. (Joke. Don't jump on me.) We aren't discriminating against them (or we shouldn't) we are enforcing the law.

I'm talking about drug dealers that haven't been arrested, or anything like that. Quiet drug dealers who support their community, while quietly killing people with their products. Should we not discriminate against them because they vote and support their communities?

I said I was talking about gays. Anyway, a bisexual person is attracted to both sexes. Their feelings for members of their own sex is no more a choice than is my fondness for breasts.[/quote]
Yet it IS a choice. They happen to like both sexes, then they choose one. That's a choice.

Again, their feelings aren't a choice. They don't choose to be sexually aroused by members of their own gender. If they are also attracted to the other gender then they are making a choice, but only in actions, not in feelings. The feelings of attraction are not a choice.

See I think we aren't on the same page. As a homosexual, you LIKE the same sex and you're CHOOSING to be with the same sex. You can argue that they can't help it but as homosexuals, they don't want to help it because they are attracted to the same sex.
Founding Fathers were mostly agnostics or theists (not Christians/Jews/Muslims). Anyway, this country is founded on the separation of church and state. Religious rationale can not be used to justify governmental practices.

No, but they can be used to enhance the morals and ethics of this country. I personally think Church and State should be less separated, but that's another issue.

By definition, minors can not consent. Beyond that, children are (in general, which is how laws are made) not emotionally mature enough to make that decision.

This is your unproven assertion. Minors can't consent according to whom? A minor is anyone under the age of 18, so the "law" has more to do with age than it has to do with a minor's mental state, because you can't sit there and tell me at what age someone can or cannot consent.


So you don't shave?

I don't trim my sideburns beyond a certain point, which is what the law states. I need to give you some links to familiarize yourself with what you're talking about.

You were put to death for disobeying your parents?

Oh, I definitely need to give you those links. Problem is you don't know what to take literally. What you don't understand, is that a lot of these laws have more leeway now because we are not as great or as holy as the previous generation, and they were not as great or holy as the generation before them, and so on, dating back to the time of the Torah. Every generation goes farther away from its roots, so there's more leeway. However, you need to know what is to be taken literally and what isn't, and thats' where rabbinical law and commentary come into play.

You don't wear shirts of more than one fiber? You would prohibit the economically and ecologically sound practice of diversifying crops?

You've never eaten shrimp or lobster?

On the contrary, it's among my favorite foods, up until 2 months ago when I made a conscious effort to stop. Doesn't mean I was right in doing so.

It just seems like any (loving) family is preferable to no family at all.

If this is the case. But if it's 1 man and 1 woman vs. 2 same sex parents, the former goes.

A leads to B.
B leads to C.
C leads to D.
...
Z leads to HELL.
We don't want to go to HELL.
So, don't take that first step A. [/URL] [/B]

Ok I think you're missing the point. My setting dangerous precedents, these things have the GREAT potential to lead to other things, and other things. That doesn't mean they will. But if we keep the morals and values we've held on to for so long, there's less of a chance of this happening.

Darth Sexy Restricted

Originally posted by Red Nemesis

http://www.apa.org/releases/sexabuse/effects.html
"But the negative effects of child sexual abuse can affect the victim for many years and into adulthood. Adults who were sexually abused as children commonly experience depression. Additionally, high levels of anxiety in these adults can result in self-destructive behaviors, such as alcoholism or drug abuse, anxiety attacks, situation-specific anxiety disorders, and insomnia. Many victims also encounter problems in their adult relationships and in their adult sexual functioning. "


Jesus Christ, for the last time please learn how to read. I have been talking about consensual issues for the entire time we've been arguing, and yet you bring that up each time.

You are arguing for me. Everyone matures differently. We have to go with the age that most people are ready for sex. That age is not before 18.

No, I'm using an argument that would explain why we shouldn't allow same sex marriages. If we start picking and choosing various ages for maturity, we're doing children and society a disservice. Which is why we picked an age (18), and we're sticking to it. If we allow same sex marriages, we are going away from the morals and ethics this country was founded on, and we're opening up doors to other issues because we can say "hell we allowed A, so why not allow B, or consider it, etc".

Brain formation matters because rational decisions are hampered before full growth.

Really? I've made myriads of rational decisions before my brain fully grew. Rational decisions are not dependent on full brain growth.

My argument that sexual activity/abuse before emotional maturity is unfounded? Your personal attacks are really getting tiring. Find some evidence that kids are unaffected by early sexual activity (links or it didn't happen) or conform to the conventional view. You haven't got a degree in psychology so you have no right to disagree with official consensus (without studies to support you). [/B]

It's not a personal attack, it's fact. There is no official consensus seeing as how I'm STILL talking about consensual sex, whereas you're talking about another issue. The FACT that a child is able to make a rational decision, dismisses the idea of being submissive. And keep in mind this is ONLY if the child is able to make a rational decision.

Darth Sexy Restricted

Btw, take your time in your rebuttal. I'm not attacking you in any way. I have a huge migraine so I will be on later, so again, take your time.

Red Nemesis The Blind Critic

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Nope, my argument is that we shouldn't for the reasons you just mentioned. That is my argument for homosexuality. IF you allow homosexuality, why not allow sex with minors? Why not allow other things? Seeing as how we shouldn't allow sex with minors because if we ban it altogether, we wouldn't have questions of under what circumstances it's allowed, and instead focus on the bigger picture of 18+. For homosexuality, I think if you start allowing them legal marriages, you're just going lower and lower.

Except that in a homosexual marriage there would be no psychological damage caused by feelings one is not emotionally mature enough to experience. Being gay doesn't scar one for life- being sexually abused does.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy

I'm talking about drug dealers that haven't been arrested, or anything like that. Quiet drug dealers who support their community, while quietly killing people with their products. Should we not discriminate against them because they vote and support their communities?

These people don't exist. Drug dealers harm their communities by luring the communty's members to become addicted to a harmful substance. Gays don't harm their communities at all.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy

[stuff I said]
Yet it IS a choice. They happen to like both sexes, then they choose one. That's a choice.

But their liking both sexes isn't a choice. And, if one prefers a gender then why should one be forced to take a partner they do not want? It almost sounds like you think it is OK to be gay but not ok to express those feelings. Why should a subset of society by forced into a life they do not want? Pursuit of happiness, man.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy

See I think we aren't on the same page. As a homosexual, you LIKE the same sex and you're CHOOSING to be with the same sex. You can argue that they can't help it but as homosexuals, they don't want to help it because they are attracted to the same sex.

I'm trying not to be a grammar nazi anymore, but I have to say that your use of the 2nd person is kind of inappropriate in this case.

Also, you are using circular, or at the very least poor logic here. You are (again) making the point that it is OK to be homosexual but not ok to act on it. How on earth is that fair?

Originally posted by Darth Sexy

No, but they can be used to enhance the morals and ethics of this country. I personally think Church and State should be less separated, but that's another issue.

DO NOT WANT

Originally posted by Darth Sexy

This is your unproven assertion. Minors can't consent according to whom? A minor is anyone under the age of 18, so the "law" has more to do with age than it has to do with a minor's mental state, because you can't sit there and tell me at what age someone can or cannot consent.

Well, according to the law for one.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy

I don't trim my sideburns beyond a certain point, which is what the law states. I need to give you some links to familiarize yourself with what you're talking about.

Oh, I definitely need to give you those links. Problem is you don't know what to take literally. What you don't understand, is that a lot of these laws have more leeway now because we are not as great or as holy as the previous generation, and they were not as great or holy as the generation before them, and so on, dating back to the time of the Torah. Every generation goes farther away from its roots, so there's more leeway. However, you need to know what is to be taken literally and what isn't, and thats' where rabbinical law and commentary come into play.


How do you know what to take literally? Either all of it is in figurative language or none of it is. You are just picking and choosing what you want to believe, and who is to say that your interpretation is better than anyone else's?

Originally posted by Darth Sexy

On the contrary, it's among my favorite foods, up until 2 months ago when I made a conscious effort to stop. Doesn't mean I was right in doing so.

So you don't wear clothes with 2 kinds of thread? And what about your parents? Were you ever disobedient? If you were (and you are still alive) then your parents disobeyed Yahwe. That is considered a bad thing, right?

Originally posted by Darth Sexy

If this is the case. But if it's 1 man and 1 woman vs. 2 same sex parents, the former goes.

But there simply aren't enough 1 man 1 woman homes accepting children? And what about if a "traditional" marriage looks to be a hostile environment for the child and the non-traditional home would be more appropriate? How could you, in good conscience, send the child to the potentially hostile location?

Originally posted by Darth Sexy

Ok I think you're missing the point. My setting dangerous precedents, these things have the GREAT potential to lead to other things, and other things. That doesn't mean they will. But if we keep the morals and values we've held on to for so long, there's less of a chance of this happening.

Except that homosexuality isn't a difference of degree or amount when compared to pedophilia or beastiality. In both of those cases, real, lasting harm is being done to organisms incabable of consent. 'Gayness' isn't like that at all.

Edit: just saw your last 2 posts. I'll deal with the second (content) post in a bit.

Lord Lucien Lets all love Lain

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
See this is the thing. Certain behavior opens the door for other behavior, which opens the door for other stuff. When are you prepared to draw the line? I think homosexuality is religiously and morally wrong and while I'm not out there gay bashing, I hardly think they should given certain rights, such as the sanctity of marriage.
I'll give you this, I don't want them marrying either. Not for any sanctimonious reason, I just don't care about marriage in general, and all the trouble surrounding it is too troublesome just for a ring and a ceremony. And yeah, certain, special rights just for them I don't like either. I like equality all around. If gay's get their own parade (which is such a horseshit thing anyways) so should bi's and straights. Black's get February as an awareness month, whites should get it too, etc.

Red Nemesis The Blind Critic
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I'll give you this, I don't want them marrying either. Not for any sanctimonious reason, I just don't care about marriage in general, and all the trouble surrounding it is too troublesome just for a ring and a ceremony. And yeah, certain, special rights just for them I don't like either. I like equality all around. If gay's get their own parade (which is such a horseshit thing anyways) so should bi's and straights. Black's get February as an awareness month, whites should get it too, etc.

You do realize that marriage as a legal institution provides a plethora of legal benefits inaccessible to others and not satisfactorily replicable by other legal maneuvers? Power of attorney, for one, spousal privilege, for another, and gifting privileges are some of the biggies. With a little looking (Wikipedia) I'm sure you could find more.

Publius II Boss

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Who said anything about being a child molester? Remember I asked you, what if the child is 17, mature enough in his or her right mind, and is consenting? Is that still child molest according to you?
You're making my own argument for me. The average seventeen year-old does not have the ability to rationalize the way he will when he's thirty. His brain hasn't developed that far yet.

My religion, Christianity, Islam. I put morals and values on a higher pedestal than simple minded happiness.
I won't follow the rules established by a religion, especially not when they affect the choices made by a government. If you want a government controlled by the religion of your choice, head on over to Israel.

If you think the ends is happiness then, hell, we could all do whatever the hell we want, if it makes us happy.
Yeah, that's exactly what this is about.

Judaism is a religion of laws. We are bound to them because they make us better people and because they make us better people, they make us happier people because we're more self aware than most people, who don't really understand what happiness is.
...

Right.

It's worked for 4,000 years. But this is from a religious background.
So did slavery. Hurray for longevity.

I want to have sex with a 15 year old who consents to it, I should be allowed to because it makes me happy. I want to make the neighbor's dog my ***** and I should be allowed to because it makes me happy.
You still fried, DS? Because we've been through this four times. A minor is a minor for a reason - she isn't capable of rationalizing the way an adult is. ****ing a dog is illegal because it is animal cruelty. Two men loving each other and wanting to spend the rest of their lives together are not comparable to pedophiles and zoophiles. You have absolutely no point here.

It's not unjustified. Homosexuality has existed since the dawn of time, but the sanctity of marriage has existed between a man and a woman.
From a religious perspective.

There was no reason to change it back in the day, there's no reason to change it now.
You should join the Jim Crow fanclub or something.

Marriage is and always will be between a man and a woman.
Don't be absurd. At least six nations have legalized same-sex marriage and several states in the US have or had in the past, too.

You're telling the laws to adapt to the change in society, I'm telling these "changes" to adapt to our laws and values. It's what's going to keep us around for a while.
Jesus.

You're telling several million people that they can't get married because your Jewish and you don't want them to. It literally all comes down to you thinking that the self-centered, sanctimonious dogma you draw from a four thousand year-old book can deny people basic human rights.

Red Nemesis The Blind Critic

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Jesus Christ, for the last time please learn how to read. I have been talking about consensual issues for the entire time we've been arguing, and yet you bring that up each time.

A child can not consent. I don't know how I can make that any more clear. Children are not emotionally mature enough to cope with these feelings.
*FYI, I was using sexual abuse to mean any sexual activity with a minor:
(Wikipedia):
Under the law, "child sexual abuse" is an umbrella term describing criminal and civil offenses in which an adult engages in sexual activity with a minor or exploits a minor for the purpose of sexual gratification.[19][4] The American Psychiatric Association states that "children cannot consent to sexual activity with adults"

APA FTW.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy

No, I'm using an argument that would explain why we shouldn't allow same sex marriages. If we start picking and choosing various ages for maturity, we're doing children and society a disservice. Which is why we picked an age (18), and we're sticking to it. If we allow same sex marriages, we are going away from the morals and ethics this country was founded on, and we're opening up doors to other issues because we can say "hell we allowed A, so why not allow B, or consider it, etc".

Slippery slope simply does not work.

Anyway, we already picked a various age for maturity. We've got to stick with that age. That age has absolutely nothing to do with gay marriage though...

See the APA quote above, and then try to find an authoritative source that says that all homosexual relations lead to harm for either party.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy

Really? I've made myriads of rational decisions before my brain fully grew. Rational decisions are not dependent on full brain growth.

Well, here is where definitions start tripping us up.
What is rational? Inimalist says that most decisions are made before rationalizing them, but how does that translate to law? It gets muddy. What's clear though is the idea that children do not have the requisite experience to handle a sexual relationship, no matter how precocious they are. They simply aren't mature enough to consent (even if they were allowed to. Which they aren't.)

Originally posted by Darth Sexy

It's not a personal attack, it's fact. There is no official consensus seeing as how I'm STILL talking about consensual sex, whereas you're talking about another issue. The FACT that a child is able to make a rational decision, dismisses the idea of being submissive. And keep in mind this is ONLY if the child is able to make a rational decision.

It can't be consensual, because the child can not consent. Get that through your head. Children are both legally prohibited from consenting and physically incapable of doing so.

Darth Sexy Restricted

Originally posted by Publius II
You're making my own argument for me. The average seventeen year-old does not have the ability to rationalize the way he will when he's thirty. His brain hasn't developed that far yet.

I'm making your argument for you? I'm stating that if you allow homosexuals to get married, you open the door for issues like this. You're mentioning 17 and 30, so? I can say the average 18, 19, 20 year old can't rationalize like a 30 year old. So why do we have a cap of 18? Who are we to decide what is rational? (The who are we argument isn't mine but I'm using it to prove my point".

I won't follow the rules established by a religion, especially not when they affect the choices made by a government. If you want a government controlled by the religion of your choice, head on over to Israel.

It's either government or religion, all depends on who you want your rules established by. But guess what, religion and the majority of this country prohibits same sex marriages, so you're SOL.

Yeah, that's exactly what this is about.

YOU said, or at least I think it was you, that people deserve to be happy and we are infringing on their happiness.

...

Right.

So did slavery. Hurray for longevity.

Slavery didn't work. Those civilizations didn't last. Most, if not all Judaic customs have worked for 4,000 years.

You still fried, DS? Because we've been through this four times. A minor is a minor for a reason - she isn't capable of rationalizing the way an adult is. ****ing a dog is illegal because it is animal cruelty. Two men loving each other and wanting to spend the rest of their lives together are not comparable to pedophiles and zoophiles. You have absolutely no point here.

Then I would have to use your argument against you. What defines a minor? Why isn't a 20 year old defined as a minor? People have the ability to rationalize at different ages. We put a cap on 18 so we don't have to pick and choose. If you think same sex marriages are allowed, then why not change the minor age to 14, or 15, or 21, or 23? A pedophile has a thing for people under the legal age. I'm telling you again, for the last time, being under 18 doesn't mean you can't rationalize, or consent to sex.

Don't be absurd. At least six nations have legalized same-sex marriage and several states in the US have or had in the past, too.

Great. So religion and the majority of the US is against it. What is your point?

Jesus.

You're telling several million people that they can't get married because your Jewish and you don't want them to. It literally all comes down to you thinking that the self-centered, sanctimonious dogma you draw from a four thousand year-old book can deny people basic human rights.

ROFL Yea that's what i'm saying. Because I don't want them to. Not because it's immoral, or takes us down a dangerous path, but because I want it to. Self Centered rofl. This self centered dogma has kept my people alive for 4,000 years while everyone else was annihilated. Let me guess, you're one of those people who don't believe in G-d because you can't see him right? Intro to Philosophy, for dummies..

Basic human rights? Since when was it EVER a basic human right for same sexes to get married? Please, show me.

Red Nemesis The Blind Critic
Let me guess, you're one of those people who don't believe in G-d because you can't see him right?

There is not any empirical evidence that suggests the existence of a god.
EDIT:
Being under 18 means that you can't rationalize or consent to sex. Not only do you lack experience, you lack the emotional and intellectual maturity that would allow you to make sound decisions in that area.

EDIT2:
Read my above post- we entered @ like the same time

Darth Sexy Restricted
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
There is not any empirical evidence that suggests the existence of a god.

Right, except you're using the logic that if you can't see him, he doesn't exist. Unfortunately that works as well as faith.

People are arrogant to believe that they're using their own logic and values to determine things rather than having religion do it. Except they don't understand that their thought processes had to come from somewhere, if not religion. Mine came from religion and they are backed by the Torah. There is no one path for a person, as you can tell.

Red Nemesis The Blind Critic
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Right, except you're using the logic that if you can't see him, he doesn't exist. Unfortunately that works as well as faith.

No, I'm using the logic that there is absolutely nothing upon which to make the assertion that 'god exists.' There is nothing to back that statement up or even to suggest it in the first place.

Lord Lucien Lets all love Lain

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
You do realize that marriage as a legal institution provides a plethora of legal benefits inaccessible to others and not satisfactorily replicable by other legal maneuvers? Power of attorney, for one, spousal privilege, for another, and gifting privileges are some of the biggies. With a little looking (Wikipedia) I'm sure you could find more.
I know what marriage does and permits. But the purpose of marriage is something I just don't like or care for.

Darth Sexy Restricted
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
No, I'm using the logic that there is absolutely nothing upon which to make the assertion that 'god exists.' There is nothing to back that statement up or even to suggest it in the first place.

Of course there's nothing tangible. However, if you ask me a question regarding something in the bible, in terms of prohibitions, I can give you a 100% logical answer. If it wasn't logical, I don't think I'd follow it just based purely on faith. But I see how it works so well for others around me and it makes so much sense that I follow it.

Red Nemesis The Blind Critic
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Of course there's nothing tangible. However, if you ask me a question regarding something in the bible, in terms of prohibitions, I can give you a 100% logical answer. If it wasn't logical, I don't think I'd follow it just based purely on faith. But I see how it works so well for others around me and it makes so much sense that I follow it.

But the original assumption (yahwe exists and wants our dead cells to hang off our face a certain way) is faulty. I'll grant you that after 4000 years of internal thought the scriptures are mostly internally consistent, but that doesn't make them right. I could invent a sci fi world that is completely internally consistent yet it still wouldn't exist.

What makes you think yahwe exists? As far as I'm concerned (at this moment) there is no reason to believe in a supernatural anything.

Darth Sexy Restricted

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
But the original assumption (yahwe exists and wants our dead cells to hang off our face a certain way) is faulty. I'll grant you that after 4000 years of internal thought the scriptures are mostly internally consistent, but that doesn't make them right. I could invent a sci fi world that is completely internally consistent yet it still wouldn't exist.

What makes you think yahwe exists? As far as I'm concerned (at this moment) there is no reason to believe in a supernatural anything.

It's not faulty just because you say it is. I can't prove G-d exists through tangible means, but I can through other ways that you might not understand. You couldn't prove that he's imaginary. The texts are right because they make sense, if you actually read them. A lot of you pride yourself on being logical people but you go off the hook when you hear the word "religion", for whatever reason, without even understanding that believe it orn it, some religions can justify EVERY question you can ask.

Darth Sexy Restricted

I think it's better that we agree to disagree for the fact that I come from a religious perspective which turns into logic. You come from a secular perspective which turns into logic. You don't agree with my logic so you claim religion is bs or whatever. This goes for Faunus too. Your argument only works if you think religion is bullshit and we shouldn't be confined to its principles. My logic works only if we confine to those principles to teach us better values and morals.

Red Nemesis The Blind Critic

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
It's not faulty just because you say it is. I can't prove G-d exists through tangible means, but I can through other ways that you might not understand. You couldn't prove that he's imaginary.

I'm smarter than you might think. Try me.

The initial assumption is faulty because there is nothing to suggest it. At all. There is no reason to believe that god exists, except the idea that it might be nice if he did. It might be nice if I had a million dollars, but that doesn't mean that I do.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
The texts are right because they make sense, if you actually read them.

I still read the bible, and am starting on the [hindu holy book] soon. Baghavad Gita or some such. The Torah isn't very high on my list though... Would you suggest it (an english translation) over something like the Koran?

As far as being 'right,' they are right if they accurately describe the way the universe works. Their starting premise (god) has no evidence and is therefore flawed (because other evidence contradicts it. There's no room for yahwe during the big bang.)

Originally posted by Darth Sexy

A lot of you pride yourself on being logical people but you go off the hook when you hear the word "religion", for whatever reason, without even understanding that believe it orn it, some religions can justify EVERY question you can ask.

Well we can understand a religion without believing it. I understand faith (or I think I do) but I don't have to believe the stories to know them. A lot of times (not necessarily this time) I've seen that atheists are more knowledgeable about religious stuff than the theist is. (Christian fundies get pwnd by atheists.)

Darth Sexy Restricted

Originally posted by Red Nemesis

I'm smarter than you might think. Try me.

The initial assumption is faulty because there is nothing to suggest it. At all. There is no reason to believe that god exists, except the idea that it might be nice if he did. It might be nice if I had a million dollars, but that doesn't mean that I do.


Based on what I've read and been around, it's hard for me NOT to believe in G-d. You can call that brainwashing but I can rebut that by saying that you've been brainwashed by the secular world. There is no reason to believe there's no supernatural being either.

I still read the bible, and am starting on the [hindu holy book] soon. Baghavad Gita or some such. The Torah isn't very high on my list though... Would you suggest it (an english translation) over something like the Koran?[/quote]
I'll be as objective as I can, even as a Jew. I've read all of them, but the Torah is all encompassing. It takes your whole lifetime to study all aspects of the torah, and that's if you study hours a day every day. This is why the Kabbalah can only be studied by a handful of rabbis on the planet.

As far as being 'right,' they are right if they accurately describe the way the universe works. Their starting premise (god) has no evidence and is therefore flawed (because other evidence contradicts it. There's no room for yahwe during the big bang.)

There is room for G-d to create the big bang, and exist beforehand. I think you think Science somehow contradicts Religion, when it doesn't. Science and Religion at times complement each other, but in no way are they contradictory.

Well we can understand a religion without believing it. I understand faith (or I think I do) but I don't have to believe the stories to know them. A lot of times (not necessarily this time) I've seen that atheists are more knowledgeable about religious stuff than the theist is. (Christian fundies get pwnd by atheists.) [/B]

Lets not talk about the Torah then. Lets talk about, lets say, personal development. I've read many secular books on personal development, and to me they don't compare to the Judaic Books on personal development (Mussar). There are so many Judaic books on ethics it's ridiculous.
Also, I don't think you will ever meet an athiest that is more knowledgable than a religious Jew.

Publius II Boss

I'm ignoring the rest because you, like S66, are arguing in circles, and I don't have the patience for this anymore.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
ROFL Yea that's what i'm saying. Because I don't want them to. Not because it's immoral, or takes us down a dangerous path,
Which it doesn't.

Self Centered rofl. This self centered dogma has kept my people alive for 4,000 years while everyone else was annihilated.
"Everyone" else? You joking?

Let me guess, you're one of those people who don't believe in G-d because you can't see him right? Intro to Philosophy, for dummies..
I believe I addressed this three pages ago.

I have no problem believing that there is an entity in the universe that operates on a level beyond our understanding. What I take issue with, for very good reason, is the idea that that entity cares about how we wear our hair. That seems more like something that someone looking to gain power and control over his primitive, gullible peers would worry about, to establish some sort of order based on what his society considered the norm. There's a reason the concept of gods and spirits arose in nearly every part of the world at some point; to explain the inexplicable. Science and logic do that now.

Basic human rights? Since when was it EVER a basic human right for same sexes to get married? Please, show me.
1.) Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, and Spain all allow for same sex marriage. Connecticut and Massachussetts both currently allow for it, and California did until just recently. You understand what Proposition 8 did? It dissolved several thousand marriages. I'm sure your friends and relatives wouldn't mind if that happened.

2.) When was it EVER a basic human right for black people or women to vote? That's right; when a few people in power stopped being blind, prejudiced idiots and extended it to them. You've demonstrated a disturbing willingness to pick and choose when it comes to what the Constitution has to say. Here's something: All men are created equal.