Christian organizations are nothing but bullies

Originally posted by chithappens
I don't follow the "African descent" and gay connection.

What's not to get? African Americans and homosexuals both commonly conform to a certain stereotype. Many young lower class blacks tend to listen to a certain type of music, dress and speak a certain way. While at gay parades, you see almost nothing but muscular dudes in pinl speedos grinding against each other to "In the Navy."

Originally posted by Bardiel13
What's not to get? African Americans and homosexuals both commonly conform to a certain stereotype. Many young lower class blacks tend to listen to a certain type of music, dress and speak a certain way. While at gay parades, you see almost nothing but muscular dudes in pinl speedos grinding against each other to "In the Navy."

🙄

what a balanced and especially nuanced analysis of the situation

Originally posted by Badabing
*sigh* I never claimed proof, only Faith. I ASKED Kali if there was proof of God's nonexistence which I didn't know about since he claimed God is a myth. 😊

Reading comprehension FTW! duryes

simple facts.

1. you have no proof of god
2. kali has disproof of your MODEL of god based on contradiction
3. you only have FAITH of your model of god
4. kali also has no proof of your model of god
5. kali has no DISPROOF of the existance of "A" god{but has disproof of the existance of "THE" god which is the model of god you claim
6. a negetive can never be disproven
7. a negetive can NEVER be used to prove the existance of a thing in question
8. you are playing with words

""Faith has paradoxes. Hence the word FAITH. It seems you're looking for science to predict or explain something that isn't science. Could you use a Political Science Doctorate to explain Particle Physics?

The burden of proof isn't on me. You're the person who seems to have absolute Faith in the non-existance of God. All I asked if you could prove it or is this just your Belief? It's ironic how your Faith and Beliefs in no God are just as unprovable as my Faith and Beliefs in God. I do know Jesus, the Apostles and Moses existed.""

""The problem is that I never claimed proof. The only claim I made is my Faith. I'm not silly, read my initial post. I asked Kali if he had proof that God doesn't exist. So, your post and analogy aren't relevant to anything I've posted.

It seems Faith in God is a very touchy subject on a Religion Forum""

"*sigh* I never claimed proof, only Faith. I ASKED Kali if there was proof of God's nonexistence which I didn't know about since he claimed God is a myth.

Reading comprehension FTW!"

9. you are lying in the above posts as can be seen.

Originally posted by Bardiel13
What's not to get? African Americans and homosexuals both commonly conform to a certain stereotype. Many young lower class blacks tend to listen to a certain type of music, dress and speak a certain way. While at gay parades, you see almost nothing but muscular dudes in pinl speedos grinding against each other to "In the Navy."

Very well thought out post that could go for any stereotype.

Good job. 💃

Originally posted by FeceMan
Statement: Imperial_Samurai does not realize it, but those "calls of equal rights" are a mainstay of their hypocrisy. They are a cloak under which the ACLU guises their...doings--after all, it is a right for people to own child pornography.

I think I heard about that (well, in an Australian newspaper) - didn't the ACLU clarify that it is against Child Pornography that involves real children but say virtual/animated stuff is different and is up to the people involved?

But this is why I ask for specific examples. Australia doesn't have such an organisation, since some might say Australia doesn't have the same conflicts (and our last Census shows Atheism on the rise so religious over-the-topness has never been a problem).

So I admit I don't see the hypocrisy in that example there if they are not advocating child pornography, not saying it should be allowed to involve children, but are saying if people want to drawn their own pictures then they can do so.

But if that is not the case and the ACLU is going around saying "people should be able to take pornographic pictures or children if they want" then you would have a point, since that would infringe upon the rights of children and would equal hypocrisy.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
simple facts.

1. you have no proof of god
2. kali has disproof of your MODEL of god based on contradiction
3. you only have FAITH of your model of god
4. kali also has no proof of your model of god
5. kali has no DISPROOF of the existance of "A" god{but has disproof of the existance of "THE" god which is the model of god you claim
6. a negetive can never be disproven
7. a negetive can NEVER be used to prove the existance of a thing in question
8. you are playing with words

""Faith has paradoxes. Hence the word FAITH. It seems you're looking for science to predict or explain something that isn't science. Could you use a Political Science Doctorate to explain Particle Physics?

The burden of proof isn't on me. You're the person who seems to have absolute Faith in the non-existance of God. All I asked if you could prove it or is this just your Belief? It's ironic how your Faith and Beliefs in no God are just as unprovable as my Faith and Beliefs in God. I do know Jesus, the Apostles and Moses existed.""

""The problem is that I never claimed proof. The only claim I made is my Faith. I'm not silly, read my initial post. I asked Kali if he had proof that God doesn't exist. So, your post and analogy aren't relevant to anything I've posted.

It seems Faith in God is a very touchy subject on a Religion Forum""

"*sigh* I never claimed proof, only Faith. I ASKED Kali if there was proof of God's nonexistence which I didn't know about since he claimed God is a myth.

Reading comprehension FTW!"

9. you are lying in the above posts as can be seen.

1. Never claimed proof only Faith.
2. Are you trying to say DISPROVED? I'm not presumptuous to "model" God as you say. I have Faith and centuries of Judea/Christian philosophy as a reference.
3. Yes, I have Faith in God. Never claimed a model or proof.
4. Okay.....
5. Kali DISPROVED my God? Neat trick since I haven't defined God. 😂 duriroll
6. A NEGATIVE? Is that what you're trying to say? Okay, but I haven't mentioned a NEGATIVE. whatdur Your perception isn't my problem.
7. NEGATIVE...dur I never claimed proof, only Faith.
8. I'm not playing with words. Your inability to follow a post isn't my problem. doped
9. Now I'm lying. crylaugh I will define the word faith for you so you can keep up. 😊
Faith, broken down succinctly, is belief without evidence.

Goodnight people. If anybody wants to continue please PM me. 😄

Originally posted by Badabing
Take a deep breath and learn how to properly quote a post. 😉

1. Never claimed proof only Faith.
2. Are you trying to say DISPROVED? I'm not presumptuous to "model" God as you say. I have Faith and centuries of Judea/Christian philosophy as a reference.
3. Yes, I have Faith in God. Never claimed a model or proof.
4. Okay.....
5. Kali DISPROVED my God? Neat trick since I haven't defined God. 😂 duriroll
6. A NEGATIVE? Is that what you're trying to say? Okay, but I haven't mentioned a NEGATIVE. whatdur Your perception isn't my problem.
7. NEGATIVE...dur I never claimed proof, only Faith.
8. I'm not playing with words. Your inability to follow a post isn't my problem. doped
9. Now I'm lying. crylaugh I will define the word faith for you so you can keep up. 😊
Faith, broken down succinctly, is belief without evidence.

Goodnight people. If anybody wants to continue please PM me. 😄

lmao. smiley's can not hide idiocincricy and stupid intentions, {that IS what you were hoping on wasnt it. since the CONTENT of your message is lacking in all areas where brain and logic is required}

first off the lack of brains is clear from your inability to understand what "MODEL" of god mean. for the less idiotic, it mean SUBSET of the universal set defined as GOD. it is limiting god to a certain model based on DEFINITION{e.g. trinity, creater, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolant, omnipresent, angry, selfish. singular/multiple}

and yes, the JUDEO/CHRISIAN "model" of god has been utterly disproven as a fallacious self contradicting construct which is incmopatible with itself and the world. it doesnt EXIST. although your too full of yourself to probe that deeply or sensibly and ill forgive you for that.

lol at point 5. your LYING, now and before. JUST now you referred to the JUDEO/CHRISTIAN god. youve defined it and it was apparent from that beginning what you were referring to. too bad, that has been disproven.

6. yes you have, it is obvious to every1 here not playing games or deluding themselves that you were trying to establish the judeo/christian god's existance by rebutting on kali to counter your argument merely by producing NEGETIVE proof. and here is the evidence.{which i posted before too}

The burden of proof isn't on me. You're the person who seems to have absolute Faith in the non-existance of God. All I asked if you could prove it or is this just your Belief? It's ironic how your Faith and Beliefs in no God are just as unprovable as my Faith and Beliefs in God. I do know Jesus, the Apostles and Moses existed.""

"*sigh* I never claimed proof, only Faith. I ASKED Kali if there was proof of God's NONexistence which I didn't know about since he claimed God is a myth.

LMAO. your very sentence reads, PROOF OF "NON" EXISTANCE. textbook definition of negetive proof. please play your games with people of your own mental level. your inability to understand the argument isnt the problem of other members.

9. your lying because your claims have been proven to be untrue and were all assuming your atleast smarter than a nursery kid who could figure that out. im well aware what faith mean. yet that has nuthing to do with the argument.

thank you for elaborating your mental state 😄

So we're all having a friendly chat about God, eh.

Originally posted by chithappens
Very well thought out post that could go for any stereotype.

Good job. 💃

Are you mocking me?

You guys need to settle the hell down. And stop flinging around "proof" or "no proof". If there was such widespread proof, no one would be Christian, and we know that isn't the case (and this coming from an atheist). I'd say there IS legit evidence to the contrary, but calling it "proof" makes me (or anyone else) as dogmatically rigid as many of the fundamentalists who are supposedly so diametrically opposed to such claims of proof of God's non-existence, and no better than them in unshakable belief.

I'm just going to claim the agnostic route and say "We don't know." We don't have anything concrete either way. And really, before we discovered atoms did they not exist simply because we had no "proof" of them?

Argumentum ad Ignorantiam

It hasn't been proven either way. ermm

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
I think I heard about that (well, in an Australian newspaper) - didn't the ACLU clarify that it is against Child Pornography that involves real children but say virtual/animated stuff is different and is up to the people involved?

But this is why I ask for specific examples. Australia doesn't have such an organisation, since some might say Australia doesn't have the same conflicts (and our last Census shows Atheism on the rise so religious over-the-topness has never been a problem).

So I admit I don't see the hypocrisy in that example there if they are not advocating child pornography, not saying it should be allowed to involve children, but are saying if people want to drawn their own pictures then they can do so.

But if that is not the case and the ACLU is going around saying "people should be able to take pornographic pictures or children if they want" then you would have a point, since that would infringe upon the rights of children and would equal hypocrisy.

Quotation:

In 1982, the ACLU became involved in a case involving the distribution of child pornography (New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747[73]) In an amicus brief, the ACLU argued that the New York state law in question "has criminalized the dissemination, sale or display of constitutionally protected non-obscene materials which portray juveniles in sexually related roles," while arguing that child pornography deemed obscene under the Miller test deserved no constitutional protection and could be banned.[74]

Statement: The information can be found here .

Originally posted by FeceMan
Statement: It is hypocritical because the ACLU champion themselves as defenders of what is morally right--the rights and liberties of people . However, they allow what is clearly morally wrong--child pornography--and so undermine any attempt at being more than an organization that spits in the face of right and wrong.

Looking at their website I don't see them claiming to be defenders of what is moral right, they speak about rights extensively though - protecting rights, making sure peoples rights are protected, preserving rights. Somehow I don't their usage of the word is the same as your usage of it in "morally right".

What you seem to be doing is equating moral considerations (a relative thing considering the many ways people feel about many things) with their aim of attacking inequality and defending rights as they see them defined by the US. Bill of rights and by way of universal rights. Since when has that been synonymous with "defenders of moral rights".

I imagine - protecting the right for a women to choose an abortion as opposed to pro life organisations that claim to be doing what is moral by trying to stop the murder of unborn children. Or as the case may be advocating the right for a gay person to have equal rights, including marriage as opposed to those organisations that consider it morally wrong and advocate the boycott of organisations that say differently.

Quotation😖tatement: The information can be found here .

Ok, I searched on that and apparently their stance isn't the support of child pornography (as in pornography that involves children) but the right for people (First Amendment or something) to create virtual material without children being involed.

Unless you are saying that pornography involving children is the same as say, pornography involving someone of a legal age being portrayed as a child (via digital manipulation they seem to be saying).

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Looking at their website I don't see them claiming to be defenders of what is moral right, they speak about rights extensively though - protecting rights, making sure peoples rights are protected, preserving rights. Somehow I don't their usage of the word is the same as your usage of it in "morally right".

What you seem to be doing is equating moral considerations (a relative thing considering the many ways people feel about many things) with their aim of attacking inequality and defending rights as they see them defined by the US. Bill of rights and by way of universal rights. Since when has that been synonymous with "defenders of moral rights".

I imagine - protecting the right for a women to choose an abortion as opposed to pro life organisations that claim to be doing what is moral by trying to stop the murder of unborn children. Or as the case may be advocating the right for a gay person to have equal rights, including marriage as opposed to those organisations that consider it morally wrong and advocate the boycott of organisations that say differently.

Ok, I searched on that and apparently their stance isn't the support of child pornography (as in pornography that involves children) but the right for people (First Amendment or something) to create virtual material without children being involed.

Unless you are saying that pornography involving children is the same as say, pornography involving someone of a legal age being portrayed as a child (via digital manipulation they seem to be saying).

Statement: While the virtual child pornography and actual child pornography are not the same thing, FeceMan still believes them both to be morally wrong.

Originally posted by leonheartmm

http://hooked-on-phonics.com/
http://www.rhlschool.com/reading.htm

😊

Originally posted by FeceMan
Statement: They would claim they are doing is morally right.

No, I am fairly sure from what I have read they would claim what they are doing is defending a person's rights as laid out by the Bill of Rights, Amendments and human rights as defined by UN type bodies. It is a "I might not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" situation (their personal feelings/morality on a matter being secondary to another person's right to etc.)

Thus it is not hypocritical - It would be hypocritical for a body advocating equal rights to be caught attacking rights.

It would be hypocritical for a pastor who attacks homosexuality to be caught paying a guy for sex.

It would be hypocritical for an anti-racism lobbyist to display racist behaviour.

What you can say is you question their morality due to some of the rights they defend, not so much they are raging hypocrites because you question their morality due to some of the rights they defend.

I mean are they hypocrites because they defend a women right to choose abortion - something many people are against morally?

Statement: They defend rights not as the U.S. Bill of Rights defines them but as how they want the U.S. Bill of Rights to be.

Or how they perceive them. After all, it seems they can put together very convincing arguments for their cases drawn from the law.

If they couldn't they wouldn't be getting to the highest stage of court proceedings. So clearly they have sufficient grounds to make a prima facie cases that rights are being infringed upon as defined by B.O.R etc.

Statement: Yet again, the ACLU makes things that are not "rights" into "rights."

Such as? From the reading I have done (as inspired by your bringing it up) most of what they do all goes back to the Bill of Rights and UN declarations on human rights. Then they say "The B.O.R (or whatever) guaranteed the right of privacy, thus the CIA tapping phones is an invasion of that right" or "Such and such says not to discriminate based on sexuality, so it is an against basic rights to deny gays marriage."

Interpretation of legal documents perhaps, but not out and out "making a right out of something that isn't".

Statement: The amicus brief says that the ACLU were defending the rights of an individual for selling material depicting underage boys masturbating.

While I don't agree with it I can understand what they are arguing (though it would make more sense today then back then). And as an aside - I can't help but notice that case was back in 1982 - its older then me. Isn't this a bit like saying "America is a nation of slavers - here is the proof, financial documents from back before the Civil War."

It shows they have black marks on their record (well, 20+ years ago) but not hypocrisy since they were doing what their charter says - defending rights as they perceive them under the laws of the US.

Statement: While the virtual child pornography and actual child pornography are not the same thing, FeceMan still believes them both to be morally wrong.

And the ACLU is not making moral judgements but saying that people have a right to produce virtual material. And to be honest I don't like the idea of it, but I am happier for people with such tastes to get their jollies with something virtually made that doesn't involve real children then going after actual kids.

Originally posted by Badabing
The burden of proof isn't on me. You're the person who seems to have absolute [b]Faith in the non-existance of God. All I asked if you could prove it or is this just your Belief? It's ironic how your Faith and Beliefs in no God are just as unprovable as my Faith and Beliefs in God. I do know Jesus, the Apostles and Moses existed. 😊[/B]

I don't have "Faith" in the non-existance of God. I simply don't beleive the Christian god exists, and not only is there no evidense to convince me, there are many reasons to negate his existance in my eyes.

You argue that I cannot prove God's non existance.

You can't prove Santa Clause's non existance either.

You can't prove Zeus' non-existance either.

If I claim that Zeus or Santa Clause do exist, and I push that on you, wouldn't you want me to atleast provide some kind of evidense for what I say ?

Likewise, I am not convinced of God's existance. Therefore, I don't beleive. There is nothing I have to prove.

The Burden of Proof is on you. It is reasonable to conclude that God doesn't exist due to lack of evidense, Biblical contradictions to itself and science, as well as other reasons.

To make a bold claim such as God exists, is one thing. But to then try and convince others that you are right, you need to provide evidense.

Originally posted by Badabing
I never said choices were free, I said we have the Free Will to make our own choices.

Free Will is not entirely free.

Originally posted by Badabing
I never said Free Will was "evidence" of God, I said it was one of His gifts.

This is another claim you are making, which you are trying to convince me of, but provide no evidense for.

Bad evil people. Get a bar of soap, carve it to look like Jesus and cram it down their throuts......

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
It is reasonable to conclude that God doesn't exist due to lack of evidense

It is illogical to assume that something doesn't exist simply because you have no evidence of it existing.

As an example I will mention electrons. Before we had any evidence of their existence, they did indeed exist. They did not suddenly come into existence when we gained evidence of them existing.

Originally posted by Badabing
Insults.....I guess being wrong brings out your best. 😂 I said that I have faith, not proof. I asked Kali if he had proof since he seemed so certain. Please take a breath and read my statements so you can understand. Bashing me doesn't prove your point. doped

http://hooked-on-phonics.com/
http://www.rhlschool.com/reading.htm

😊

lol. trying to put on a brave face when youve been played like a little kitten{being nice here}. i proved you wrong by your own STATEMENT. you were asking for negetive proof and LYING about not asking, please, for your own sake, if you wanna be taken seriously on these forums. do not stoop to idiotic debating tactics of JIA's/marchello's and galactic storm's class.

your inability to REPLY shows in your posts as stubborn restating of what was said earlier and inability to reply {at ALL} to the points made.