God created evil for his pleasure. Do you recognize the pleasure of creating and doing evil?

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Marocc said:

Can't argue about faith based beliefs, but can argue about philosophical ejaculations taken out of context?

Sure, if you want. 

Edit> Actually, one can argue about faith based beliefs, but it's pointless.  Not so BP's ejaculation. 

Edited April 15, 2020 by bcsapper

[Marocc]

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

it's pointless. 

It not always if you know what you're talking about. You don't, so you have little to take and little to give to the discussion. For the same reason French "patriot"'s topics don't get anywhere.

[Marocc]

3 hours ago, French Patriot said:

Moral people want to know which group is more evil.

No — those are insecure and judgmental people. Moral people know which group is more evil or admit they do not know.

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, Marocc said:

It not always if you know what you're talking about. You don't, so you have little to take and little to give to the discussion. For the same reason French "patriot"'s topics don't get anywhere.

Your first sentence there is a grasp at a straw.  You have no argument.  You have absolutely no evidence whatsoever for any of your beliefs, beyond words written by humans a very long time ago, about whom you know nothing.  You simply choose to believe them, which is your right.  Nothing about your beliefs make Gods exist, though, nor do they put any kind of lie to Pascal's quote.

I doubt you could find any people like me who would hurt you for your beliefs.  There are countries where I couldn't blindly throw a rock without hitting someone like you who would cheerfully hurt me for mine.

 

[Marocc]

28 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Your first sentence there is a grasp at a straw. 

How so? Do you know anything about religion? You keep responding with remarks that are supposed to be funny and to dismiss attempts to further discuss what you've said. Sure, you think you know whether God exists or not. That's not the topic of religion as a whole — such discussion often goes further than what you think you know and that further discussion might be useless to you.

28 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I doubt you could find any people like me who would hurt you for your beliefs

India? China? Russia? Not that I'm interested in competing about it.

30 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

like you who would cheerfully hurt me for mine.

Are you saying I'm violent? Because of my beliefs? Isn't that hurting in and of itself? Isn't that abuse in and of itself?

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Marocc said:

How so? Do you know anything about religion? You keep responding with remarks that are supposed to be funny and to dismiss attempts to further discuss what you've said. Sure, you think you know whether God exists or not. That's not the topic of religion as a whole — such discussion often goes further than what you think you know and that further discussion might be useless to you.

I was raised a Roman Catholic and didn't develop into atheism until I was in my late teens.  Maybe even early twenties.  I didn't keep notes.  I've known quite a few religious people. 

 

9 minutes ago, Marocc said:

India? China? Russia? Not that I'm interested in competing about it.

They're not like me.  India would be actually be religious too.  It's those barbaric Hindus doing evil completely and cheerfully on people like you.  I mean, Cow Protection Groups!  Really???  They're as  bad as Cartoonist Extermination Groups. 

China would be political extremism.  They would do the same to any homogeneous group they think might threaten their hegemony down the road.

Russia, I don't know.  What are they doing?

18 minutes ago, Marocc said:

Are you saying I'm violent? Because of my beliefs? Isn't that hurting in and of itself? Isn't that abuse in and of itself?

I'm not saying you are.  I'm saying people like you are.

That said, I think you're the only person with a weapon in your avatar.  But I'm sure it means nothing.

[Marocc]

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

I was raised a Roman Catholic and didn't develop into atheism until I was in my late teens.  Maybe even early twenties.  I didn't keep notes.  I've known quite a few religious people. 

I.e. you know nothing about religion, but you have known religious people? That wouldn't get you far into the topic of religion, unless the topic was religious people as perceived in specific groups and as individuals — which would be more of a social-psychological topic, rather than a religious one.

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

They're not like me. 

 

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

I'm not saying you are.  I'm saying people like you are.

So when it comes to the former, it referred to you in a specific, detailed way, but the latter referred to me on a vague way?

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Marocc said:

I.e. you know nothing about religion, but you have known religious people? That wouldn't get you far into the topic of religion, unless the topic was religious people as perceived in specific groups and as individuals — which would be more of a social-psychological topic, rather than a religious one.

 

So when it comes to the former, it referred to you in a specific, detailed way, but the latter referred to me on a vague way?

People like me, and people like you.  If the people I was talking about are not like you, say so, and I'll believe you.  Maybe.  I seem to remember you being associated with beheadings in some earlier thread, but I don't remember much about it.

[OftenWrong]

6 hours ago, French Patriot said:

You think the dead can agree. What a dumb ass you are.

I see that stats do not matter to you and your inability to prove me wrong brought out stupidity.

Regards

DL

 

I see you lashing out and attacking me. Not very christian after all, are you.

Go to the devil then...

[Marocc]

18 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

If the people I was talking about are not like you, say so, and I'll believe you

That doesn't justify your earlier words. You implied that people like me are violent. That leads me to the conclusion you mean either me, personally, or Muslims. That combined with your denial that various other groups of people are anything like you, sounds almost like you were stumbling on your own words.

I resent defending myself against false statements. It is inappropriate to make false statements without concern for the consequences and place the responsibility of declaring them false on the targeted group or individual.

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, Marocc said:

That doesn't justify your earlier words. You implied that people like me are violent. That leads me to the conclusion you mean either me, personally, or Muslims. That combined with your denial that various other groups of people are anything like you, sounds almost like you were stumbling on your own words.

I resent defending myself against false statements. It is inappropriate to make false statements without concern for the consequences and place the responsibility of declaring them false on the targeted group or individual.

No stumbling.  I meant Muslims.  (I thought it was obvious) Not all of them, of course, but a substantial number of them.  Which may or not include you.  I wouldn't presume to know.  You could clear it up if you want, by telling me if you think any kind of punishment for breaking religious customs, codes, traditions, laws, etc. is justifiable.

Those others are not like me because they don't act based on their atheism.  Unless Russia did.  I'm still unaware of what they've done.

Edited April 15, 2020 by bcsapper

[OftenWrong]

5 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Your first sentence there is a grasp at a straw.  You have no argument.  You have absolutely no evidence whatsoever for any of your beliefs, beyond words written by humans a very long time ago, about whom you know nothing.  You simply choose to believe them, which is your right.  Nothing about your beliefs make Gods exist, though, nor do they put any kind of lie to Pascal's quote.

For many people the need to prove its existence is irrelevant. It simply does not need to exist in the simple and reduced way that you insist upon as your definition whether religion is valid or not. I suggest you do not understand what it means to people who need it, to fill a void in their lives.

Edited April 16, 2020 by OftenWrong

[Guest]

1 minute ago, OftenWrong said:

For many people the need to prove its existence is irrelevant. It simply does not need to exist in the simple and reduced way that you insist upon as your definition whether religion is valid or not. I suggest you do not understand what it means to people who need it, to fill a void in their lives.

Religions are not valid, but that doesn't mean people shouldn't have them if it makes them feel good.  They just should not expect anyone else to accommodate them, that's all.  Unless they want to, of course. 

[OftenWrong]

3 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Religions are not valid

Only says you. I say whatever is functional and helps people, is valid.

Quote

They just should not expect anyone else to accommodate them, that's all.  Unless they want to, of course. 

Well yippee friggin bravo. No one is asking you to accommodate them either.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Only says you. I say whatever is functional and helps people, is valid.

Well yippee friggin bravo. No one is asking you to accommodate them either.

They might, if I decided to blaspheme in Pakistan.  Or have an abortion if I was a women.  Or eat beef in India.  Or if I simply wanted to avail myself of a medical professional to help me die.

Let's just agree that nobody gets any unless it's offered freely.

 

[OftenWrong]

32 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

They might, if I decided to blaspheme in Pakistan.  Or have an abortion if I was a women.  Or eat beef in India.  Or if I simply wanted to avail myself of a medical professional to help me die.

Let's just agree that nobody gets any unless it's offered freely.

I'll only agree that everyone has their reasons to kill if they want to, and atheists are by no means exempt. As demonstrated in my earlier comments to the unwitting adherents of atheist communism.

Which we know was responsible for more brutality and bloodshed in WWII than any other single faction. Stalin had his own people butchered. He needed no bible to use as his excuse.

Quite the contrary. As with communist China, without a god presiding above the state, the State reigns supreme. Then the ruler is supreme, is god. Just like in ancient Rome where Augustus Caesar was the embodiment of divinity, you see that kind of worship of communist leaders by their people. That is why their leaders are irreplacable as well. That is the kind of absolute power they seek, and the kind of world that atheists like French Patriot would put upon us.

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

I'll only agree that everyone has their reasons to kill if they want to, and atheists are by no means exempt. As demonstrated in my earlier comments to the unwitting adherents of atheist communism.

Which we know was responsible for more brutality and bloodshed in WWII than any other single faction. Stalin had his own people butchered. He needed no bible to use as his excuse.

Quite the contrary. As with communist China, without a god presiding above the state, the State reigns supreme. Then the ruler is supreme, is god. Just like in ancient Rome where Augustus Caesar was the embodiment of divinity, you see that kind of worship of communist leaders by their people. That is why their leaders are irreplacable as well. That is the kind of absolute power they seek, and the kind of world that atheists like French Patriot would put upon us.

I'm absolutely fine with fascists and communists being called all the ***** under the Sun.  I would argue their atheism wasn't a factor in their behaviour though.

[OftenWrong]

28 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

 I would argue their atheism wasn't a factor in their behaviour though.

Let us know which excuses for mass murder you approve of, and which you do not. Will take note.

[Guest]

Just now, OftenWrong said:

Let us know which excuses for mass murder you approve of, and which you do not. Will take note.

That's a pretty dumb thing to say.  Let me know if you're arguing Stalin was a twat because he was an atheist and not because he was a communist.

[OftenWrong]

11 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

That's a pretty dumb thing to say.  Let me know if you're arguing Stalin was a twat because he was an atheist and not because he was a communist.

What is actually dumb is your opinion.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

What is actually dumb is your opinion.

Which one?  I've got lots.

[OftenWrong]

9 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Which one?  I've got lots.

All.

[Guest]

Just now, OftenWrong said:

All.

Ah well, at least we cleared that up.

[OftenWrong]

14 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Ah well, at least we cleared that up.

Yes, as long as condemnation is equal for all then we are not biased.

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Yes, as long as condemnation is equal for all then we are not biased.

Swap proportional for equal and we have ourselves a deal!