Arguing About Religion Is Good

[lVlad]

This doesnt matter if you are a man of faith or not.

There seems to be benefits about religious arguments

I would like to argue against some misconceptions:

1. You cant change someones mind by arguing about something abstract which cannot be proven.
Millions of people throughout history have either joined or switched faiths because they were convinced by anothers arguments and or claims. Thus, it is possible and allows for the pleasure and knowledge to be exposed and enjoyed. Angry arguments help root out weaknesses in arguments and later allowing them to be altered.

2. You cant prove it
By material science you cant. Religion claims to be beyond it. Thus, its okay. However, material science can be used to point out probabilities and abstract ideas are healthy for the mind and only serve to enhance cognition.

3. Religion is the Root of all Evil
No it isnt. Human nature is. Religion discusses why evil arises. It doesnt discuss nor promote how to be evil.

I have more to say but have to go at this time

[VenomKing666]

At 6/25/09 03:30 PM, lVlad wrote: 3. Religion is the Root of all Evil
No it isnt. Human nature is. Religion discusses why evil arises. It doesnt discuss nor promote how to be evil.

Not openly, but it sure did, and still does.

1. Keep people ignorant.
Dumbasses are easier to control and since they ignore facts about the world that are even easier to control because they will eat every bullshit you say.

2. It's not me that wants it it is GOD, would you go against GOD ?
The best way to make people do immoral things is to convince them it is in fact good.

Killing the enemies of god is a good thing, you will go straight in heaven.

Because your earth life is not important. Only your life after you die.

-

Damn I hate all this bullshit.

[lVlad]

At 6/25/09 03:52 PM, VenomKing666 wrote:

At 6/25/09 03:30 PM, lVlad wrote: 3. Religion is the Root of all Evil
No it isnt. Human nature is. Religion discusses why evil arises. It doesnt discuss nor promote how to be evil.

Not openly, but it sure did, and still does.

1. Keep people ignorant.
Dumbasses are easier to control and since they ignore facts about the world that are even easier to control because they will eat every bullshit you say.

2. It's not me that wants it it is GOD, would you go against GOD ?
The best way to make people do immoral things is to convince them it is in fact good.

Killing the enemies of god is a good thing, you will go straight in heaven.

Because your earth life is not important. Only your life after you die.

-

Damn I hate all this bullshit.

Take away the religion. Humans would still find an excuse. Do this for me or for your king or for your country or its just right! Its us with the problem not the belief system we believe. Also, you are ignoring all circumstances in which religion subdues and calms people.

[Drakim]

At 6/25/09 04:06 PM, lVlad wrote: Take away the religion. Humans would still find an excuse. Do this for me or for your king or for your country or its just right! Its us with the problem not the belief system we believe. Also, you are ignoring all circumstances in which religion subdues and calms people.

Exactly. Even if the US wasn't overly religions, they would just find some other excuse to deny things like evolution. And the Vatican would still prevent condoms from making it to Africa even if they were secular.

[lVlad]

At 6/25/09 05:33 PM, Drakim wrote:

At 6/25/09 04:06 PM, lVlad wrote: Take away the religion. Humans would still find an excuse. Do this for me or for your king or for your country or its just right! Its us with the problem not the belief system we believe. Also, you are ignoring all circumstances in which religion subdues and calms people.

Exactly. Even if the US wasn't overly religions, they would just find some other excuse to deny things like evolution. And the Vatican would still prevent condoms from making it to Africa even if they were secular.

I know what you mean man! If an organization doesnt directly promote evolution or if they present a differing view they are obviously fucking evil!

No really though, religion does not equate evil.

peaceful religions such as buddhism, jainism, sikhism, etc point that it can be peaceful

[Ericho]

At 6/25/09 03:30 PM, lVlad wrote: 3. Religion is the Root of all Evil
No it isnt. Human nature is. Religion discusses why evil arises. It doesnt discuss nor promote how to be evil.

Yes! Even Richard Dawkins protested to the title of his documentary on religion!

Thank you for making this thread!

[VenomKing666]

At 6/25/09 04:06 PM, lVlad wrote: Take away the religion. Humans would still find an excuse. Do this for me or for your king or for your country or its just right! Its us with the problem not the belief system we believe. Also, you are ignoring all circumstances in which religion subdues and calms people.

You got a point, but a King is still a man, not a fucking GOD. of course there are other ways to subdue people. But religion does it without shame, therefore it's a piece of shit.

[lolzk]

May sound off topic but I believe religion isn't supposed to be used as a tool, so not to blame god or use him/her as a justification. But to me religion is just a wide array of lessons that you integrate into your life as they are logical and create happiness. The 10 commandments are an example of the law that should be followed to keep happiness. I'm an atheist by the way.

[VenomKing666]

At 6/25/09 11:35 PM, lolzk wrote: May sound off topic but I believe religion isn't supposed to be used as a tool, so not to blame god or use him/her as a justification. But to me religion is just a wide array of lessons that you integrate into your life as they are logical and create happiness.
The 10 commandments are an example of the law that should be followed to keep happiness. I'm an atheist by the way.

Exept in talks about a big magical man in the sky that dosen,t exist, we don,t need this. And the so called "lessons" that are the 10 commandments are just common fucking sense.

[lolzk]

At 6/26/09 12:09 AM, VenomKing666 wrote:

At 6/25/09 11:35 PM, lolzk wrote: May sound off topic but I believe religion isn't supposed to be used as a tool, so not to blame god or use him/her as a justification. But to me religion is just a wide array of lessons that you integrate into your life as they are logical and create happiness.
The 10 commandments are an example of the law that should be followed to keep happiness. I'm an atheist by the way.

Exept in talks about a big magical man in the sky that dosen,t exist, we don,t need this. And the so called "lessons" that are the 10 commandments are just common fucking sense.

And why do you think it is common sense aye? Because of religion, religion's teachings are intergrated into more than just our lives but into law. Doesnt mean that there is a big magical man in the sky. If your gonna look at religion and hate it for what people put onto it then does that not make you ignorant to facts, that religion does give us common sense and it does give people hope and something to lean on when times are bad?

[VenomKing666]

At 6/26/09 12:19 AM, lolzk wrote:

And why do you think it is common sense aye? Because of religion, religion's teachings are intergrated into more than just our lives but into law.

Wrong assumption.
Most commendments are: You shall not kill, steal, say false things about your neighbor etc.
These are comon fucking sense, because most people have empathy and they realize that they would not enjoy to get killed or to have things stolen from them etc. So they don,t fucking do it to other people. Because they know that if everyone did it, the world would be a shitstorm.
It,s not obvious because of religion, it's religion that took obvious things and made them commandments.

Doesnt mean that there is a big magical man in the sky. If your gonna look at religion and hate it for what people put onto it then does that not make you ignorant to facts, that religion does give us common sense

Common sense to believe in a magical man in the sky that created a man from dust and a woman from that man,s bone and that god banned from paradise because they ate the fruit of KNOWLEGDE because a faggot talking snake told them too.
Common fucking sense.

and it does give people hope and something to lean on when times are bad?

Even if it's hope it's still a lie.

An utopia based on lies is an utopia of lies.

Main point being: If god dosen't exist, people should not believe in him. And so far we got exactly ZERO proof of his existence.

[TheFarseer]

At 6/26/09 02:12 AM, VenomKing666 wrote:

At 6/26/09 12:19 AM, lolzk wrote:

And why do you think it is common sense aye? Because of religion, religion's teachings are intergrated into more than just our lives but into law.

Wrong assumption.
Most commendments are: You shall not kill, steal, say false things about your neighbor etc.
These are comon fucking sense, because most people have empathy and they realize that they would not enjoy to get killed or to have things stolen from them etc. So they don,t fucking do it to other people. Because they know that if everyone did it, the world would be a shitstorm.
It,s not obvious because of religion, it's religion that took obvious things and made them commandments.

Doesnt mean that there is a big magical man in the sky. If your gonna look at religion and hate it for what people put onto it then does that not make you ignorant to facts, that religion does give us common sense

Common sense to believe in a magical man in the sky that created a man from dust and a woman from that man,s bone and that god banned from paradise because they ate the fruit of KNOWLEGDE because a faggot talking snake told them too.
Common fucking sense.

and it does give people hope and something to lean on when times are bad?

Even if it's hope it's still a lie.

An utopia based on lies is an utopia of lies.

Main point being: If god dosen't exist, people should not believe in him. And so far we got exactly ZERO proof of his existence.

And you have exactly ZERO proof God does not exist. You keep saying that a belief in a higher power is a lie and completely false but you have no proof of that to begin with. And to me there is a common sense to believing in God. Look around you! This universe is so immense and complex, and us Humans are so biologically perfected(I'm not talking about our behaviors, I'm talking about how our body adapts and evolves to an environment.), that I find it hard to believe that all of this could of been created by nothing. There has to be a higher intelligence to have created all of this because nothing can't create something.

And with your CONSTANT use of the Garden of Eden analogy, you have to look at the underlying elements of the story to actually understand it. Satan managed to convince Eve to take the apple and give it to her husband by saying "you will be like gods who know what is good and what is bad". Adam and Eve were in a PARADISE. And Satan introduced bad/evil to them. Before that, there was no good and evil. Because you can't call something good if there isn't an evil opposite of the action. God made them leave because they now knew what evil was and would destroy there paradise. Also the Tree of Knowledge had ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with Scientific Knowledge(why would God not want us to understand his creation?) It was the Knowledge of Good and Evil. The story's basic lesson is: God created Man and Satan gave them evil.

[lolzk]

At 6/26/09 04:26 AM, lolzk wrote: ISP = Internet SERVICE provider. :P

Wrong topic, lol.

Zero evidence on either side, so maybe god does or does not exist, but should we turn away just because you can't prove it?

[RubberTrucky]

At 6/26/09 02:12 AM, VenomKing666 wrote:
Most commendments are: You shall not kill, steal, say false things about your neighbor etc.
These are comon fucking sense, because most people have empathy and they realize that they would not enjoy to get killed or to have things stolen from them etc.

I don't know how much of a common sense that actually is.
Sure, we live on a humanitarian basis these days where we are inclined to live peacefully, help eachother out and take care of the weak and the elderly.
But is it that much more logical than if we were to steal and allow criminal activities?

Cause if stealing was allowed, people would live by the rule of the strongest. You could steal as long as you wouldn't get caught. This means that individually we will get stronger and we can survive better.

Both of them have their strong points and weak points. All in all, both societies could function rather well. So it's not so much common sense after all.

[VenomKing666]

At 6/26/09 03:46 AM, TheFarseer wrote:

And you have exactly ZERO proof God does not exist. You keep saying that a belief in a higher power is a lie and completely false but you have no proof of that to begin with.

I don,t need any proof, the burden of proof is on YOUR shoulders. If I tell you that there is a magical man called Lunos that lives in a parrallel dimention in the moon, and then to give me proofs of hih non-existence, like you cannot prove the non-existence of pixies and flying teapots.

And to me there is a common sense to believing in God.

I will agree with that, but it's not for the reason you might think And it dosen't prove god anyway, look at this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iMmvu9eM rg

Look around you! This universe is so immense and complex, and us Humans are so biologically perfected(I'm not talking about our behaviors, I'm talking about how our body adapts and evolves to an environment.), that I find it hard to believe that all of this could of been created by nothing.

I find it really easy in fact. It's you that is seeing the things from the wrong point of view and draws false conclusions from it. YOu look at the world and see that everything fits, but it's not because of the hand of a magical man, it's just the laws of the universe that wants that. Everything you see around you is just the CAUSE of something. The human body evolved from lower organisms, it started with tiny cells in a puddle of water, and they changed, they adapted to survive. And they became beings more and more complex.

There has to be a higher intelligence to have created all of this because nothing can't create something.

THis is true, nothing can create something, but that dosen,t prove god either, because nothing in the universe came from nothing.

And with your CONSTANT use of the Garden of Eden analogy, you have to look at the underlying elements of the story to actually understand it. Satan managed to convince Eve to take the apple and give it to her husband by saying "you will be like gods who know what is good and what is bad". Adam and Eve were in a PARADISE. And Satan introduced bad/evil to them. Before that, there was no good and evil.

Tell me you don't believe in that story please. Also a world without good and evil can only be a neutral world, therefore a fucking boring world where nothing happens. Also the idea that 2 human being can repopulate the earth is impossible and just disgusting, exept if you like incest.

Because you can't call something good if there isn't an evil opposite of the action. God made them leave because they now knew what evil was and would destroy there paradise.

WHy did this fucking asshole put the fruit here anyways ? He had to know it would happen. But he dosen't exist and all of this is bullshit anyway lolol.

Also the Tree of Knowledge had ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with Scientific Knowledge(why would God not want us to understand his creation?) It was the Knowledge of Good and Evil. The story's basic lesson is: God created Man and Satan gave them evil.

Satan actually looks like a much better dude than god, in the bible at least. I think he killed basically 2 people and had a chat with Jesus in the desert. God killed thousands of them because of JUSTICE or some shit like that, what a fucking faggot.

I like to argue about story of fairy tales with you.

At 6/26/09 06:03 AM, RubberTrucky wrote:

Cause if stealing was allowed, people would live by the rule of the strongest. You could steal as long as you wouldn't get caught. This means that individually we will get stronger and we can survive better.

No, because as strong as you are, ten people will still be able to kick your ass.

Both of them have their strong points and weak points. All in all, both societies could function rather well. So it's not so much common sense after all.

Heh ?

[Ericho]

Even if you get rid of religion, there could still be God problems. Mao Zedong was an atheist yet he was known for having a large cult of personality by people who worshipped him. Even by destroying religion, people will still find justifications to be worshipped for whatever reason, so it might not make that much difference.

[lVlad]

At 6/26/09 12:18 PM, VenomKing666 wrote:

I don,t need any proof, the burden of proof is on YOUR shoulders. If I tell you that there is a magical man called Lunos that lives in a parrallel dimention in the moon, and then to give me proofs of hih non-existence, like you cannot prove the non-existence of pixies and flying teapots.

Venom, the burden of proof is on both atheists and religious peoples' shoulders. First of all, many religions have different views on God and who he is and what dimention he is in. Just like atheists have different views on how the universe came into existence.

Burden of Proof

There was a God or Force that always existed and created the universe. In this way, it is fair to say that the universe was created on purpose.

The big bang started without any divine being or consciousness starting it or modulating it. In this way, it is fair to say that the universe was an accident.

Since neither atheists or religious people were there, the burden of proof is on boths shoulders.

[silentisdeath16]

You usually can't change peoples opinions on religon a lot of the time.

Trust me...my gf is a greek orthodox and im an Athiest and nothing can change her mind...also...shes a woman...

[VenomKing666]

At 6/26/09 12:46 PM, lVlad wrote:

Venom, the burden of proof is on both atheists and religious peoples' shoulders.

No it's not, if YOU want me to believe in your magical man in the sky you have to bring PROOF, because without this WE HAVE NO REASON TO BELIEVE IN SOMETHING WE HAVE NO PROOF FOR, AND WE HAVE ZERO PROOF FOR GOD.

You may not like this fact but it's fucking true, live with it.

First of all, many religions have different views on God and who he is and what dimention he is in.

WHat is that supposed to show ? Ecept confirm that God is just something some retards make suppositions about.

Just like atheists have different views on how the universe came into existence.

No, we might not be sure about it, but we know science will find the answer.

Burden of Proof

There was a God or Force that always existed and created the universe. In this way, it is fair to say that the universe was created on purpose.

You have no proof for the premise of this argument, therefore it's just fucking bullshit, thank you very much.

The big bang started without any divine being or consciousness starting it or modulating it. In this way, it is fair to say that the universe was an accident.

Accident ? i wouldn't describe it as this, just the result of an action. Action-reaction, you know.

Since neither atheists or religious people were there, the burden of proof is on boths shoulders.

No. The burden of proof of god is on believers. Because THEY are the one advancing the idea that there might be a magical man in the sky, yet they have no proof for it, not only this, but it's a ridiculous idea. And now I should prove that he dosen,t exist ? Not only is it impossible to PROVE THE NON-EXISTENCE of something, but it's fucking arrogant.

[RubberTrucky]

At 6/26/09 01:46 PM, VenomKing666 wrote:
No, we might not be sure about it, but we know science will find the answer.

Except, science will NEVER find it. But science doesn't make claims to do so.

[Brick-top]

This argument "changing ones mind" is so vague it can refer to anything.

What are you trying to change? Their beliefs? I don't think so. So long as either do not cause or promote harm to another it's detestable to convert others.

Most debates are either correcting mistakes about the opinions and/or beliefs (or lack thereof) or it involves criticism, analysis, questioning etc.

I doubt everyone is here just to make everyone else think the way they do.

[poxpower]

At 6/26/09 06:03 AM, RubberTrucky wrote:

people would live by the rule of the strongest. You could steal as long as you wouldn't get caught. This means that individually we will get stronger and we can survive better.

No, this means that you will get caught really fast and be killed. You can already steal as long as you don't get caught btw. You can do all the crimes you want as long as you don't get caught.
But any society that promoted theft and violence against other community members would be wiped out from the face of the earth so fast it would make your head spin. I can't think of one single example of such a society that exists or has ever existed.

The "rules" of the bible that people agree with have all been developed all over the globe by independent civilizations and even animals. The other rules are bullshit like "honor your father" or "don't worship other Gods".

I mean THINK for crying out loud, this shit's not hard to figure out :O

[lVlad]

Science is not ever going to explain the creation of the universe. Why?
(Earth science specifically and astronomy)

A. Science has never been unified. Scientists disagree with each other all the time and conclusions are different. Instead of progressing, this causes them to jump back and forth between theories. Even seemingly progressive things like medicine, its always attacking each other. This is gonna give you side effects. No this is better. Etc, etc

B. Science is flawed because it is an assumption that only the physical world exists. If you were born in a card board box and lets say by a miracle, you lived there for your whole life. If you had to write a book on your view of the world, you might erronously assume that the cardboard, darkness, the smell, that environment is all that exists.

C. We clearly do not have enough research and technology to learn about the creation of the universe and even if we did. We would have to rely on with perfect faith that the science got it right....except 50 years later that might all change!

[poxpower]

At 6/26/09 05:26 PM, lVlad wrote: Science is not ever going to explain the creation of the universe.

Science MIGHT not ever, but religion DEFINITELY never will.

A. Science has never been unified.

It's unified on a ton of things. The simple proof is all the inventions that science enabled. You can't not agree that we make planes fly.

B. Science is flawed because it is an assumption that only the physical world exists.

Until you have evidence that something else exists, why the fuck would we assume it exists?

ARRRRRRRR NO HERE I AM SAYING SUPER-OBVIOUS THINGS AGAIN NOOOOOOO NEXT UP: HEY YOU CAN'T DISPROVE OTHER DIMENSIONS AKDFJSKFJSDKFLSDJAF

C. We clearly do not have enough research and technology to learn about the creation of the universe

We pretty much know what went on from like one nanosecond after the big bang. Before that, no one knows.

NO ONE

[RubberTrucky]

There are commandments which invested in moral, that are not so obvious. Like the fact that you may not commit adultery. Even up to today we often feel betrayed by a partner that has sex with other people. But why is that so obvious?

One might argue that having sex with other people may cause STDs to be spread. But that's a bit of a lame argument, I feel, since our technology can keep STDs at bay. And I'm not really fond of basic biology arguments, cause in law, our human reason should overcome biology.
The same goes for the fact that both parents are needed to raise a kid. we can manage on our own to raise a kid.

Onb a side note, ancient civilisations tended to not even be so strict about stealing and killing. Sparta for instance was known for allowing this up to a degree for the specific goal of eliminating the weak and maintaining the strong. Even though these nations have been wiped out by now, one might wonder if this is because of this kind of shenanigans or rather because religion which sported those rules dominated all over the world.

[Tancrisism]

At 6/26/09 05:33 PM, poxpower wrote: Science MIGHT not ever, but religion DEFINITELY never will.

This is a very good point.

It's unified on a ton of things. The simple proof is all the inventions that science enabled. You can't not agree that we make planes fly.

Not to mention religion will especially never be unified, due to its very nature. Science, at least, tries to unify itself.

Until you have evidence that something else exists, why the fuck would we assume it exists?

Also, that statement is wrong. Science doesn't assume that only the physical world exists. Science merely attempts to allow us to understand the physical world more. Science says nothing about anything that isn't the physical world because it only applies to the physical world.

C. We clearly do not have enough research and technology to learn about the creation of the universe

We pretty much know what went on from like one nanosecond after the big bang. Before that, no one knows.

Vlad, you should read a bit about big bang theory as well as the reasons that scientists believe the universe is expanding (such as the Doppler effect).

Not to mention this point: We may never have enough research or technology to learn about the creation of the universe. So why would someone who acknowledges this then decide the prudent choice would be to come up with some wild explanation for its creation and then blindly assume that this explanation is correct?

[Brick-top]

At 6/26/09 05:26 PM, lVlad wrote: Science is not ever going to explain the creation of the universe. Why?
(Earth science specifically and astronomy)

And I wonder how many people said Science I wont be able to do 'this' and 'that' 300 years ago.

A. Science has never been unified. Scientists disagree with each other all the time and conclusions are different. Instead of progressing, this causes them to jump back and forth between theories. Even seemingly progressive things like medicine, its always attacking each other. This is gonna give you side effects. No this is better. Etc, etc

Half truth.

When a Scientist makes a hypothesis, does research etc and wants the paper published. It's examined, criticised, tests are redone, observations are redone etc. If there were no intentional or accidental errors and it's the most plausible conclusion to explain a phenomenon with evidence backing it up, it's accepted.

Scientists will disagree because the research found in science is always being modified based on incoming evidence and to discover the most plausible conclusion. There is always a general consensus, like a round earth. Who heard of that crazy theory?

B. Science is flawed because it is an assumption that only the physical world exists.

If you have evidence for a none-physical (with being specific on what you mean by physical) then send it to peer review.

The funny part is, you're accusing science of making a particular assumption when you yourself have made the assumption because you haven't provided evidence to back up your assertion that there is anything more than 'physical'.

If you were born in a card board box and lets say by a miracle, you lived there for your whole life. If you had to write a book on your view of the world, you might erronously assume that the cardboard, darkness, the smell, that environment is all that exists.

Cardboard boxes don't expand and contain millions of galaxies.

That's a piss poor analogy.

C. We clearly do not have enough research and technology to learn about the creation of the universe and even if we did. We would have to rely on with perfect faith that the science got it right....except 50 years later that might all change!

Read above paragraph. Spherical planet? It's so crazy!

Unlike the 'popular' Religions science doesn't make absolutes even when it appears that way. You can try to water it down but look around you. Your computer, clean water and many of the foods in your fridge are all products of scientific research.

You can try to make science seem small and insignificant but you're using a product of science to say it's research is all on faith when it was that research which made the product you're using.

Stop bastardising something you evidently know very little about.

[SeaBoundRhino]

At 6/25/09 11:23 PM, VenomKing666 wrote:

At 6/25/09 04:06 PM, lVlad wrote: Take away the religion. Humans would still find an excuse. Do this for me or for your king or for your country or its just right! Its us with the problem not the belief system we believe. Also, you are ignoring all circumstances in which religion subdues and calms people.

You got a point, but a King is still a man, not a fucking GOD. of course there are other ways to subdue people. But religion does it without shame, therefore it's a piece of shit.

Religion is the excuse used by the country or a person to start a war. It doesn't say in any sacred texts to start wars. The religion does nothing, therefore you are wrong.

As for the OP's topic, I couldn't agree more. Yes, you can never prove or disprove God, but when you argue something you can clarify thoughts, learn a little and teach the person you're arguing with about your beliefs.

[poxpower]

At 6/26/09 05:54 PM, RubberTrucky wrote: There are commandments which invested in moral, that are not so obvious. Like the fact that you may not commit adultery.

So...?
I've yet to be shown that monogamy is a brilliant idea. Obviously straight-out adultery is just lying. You say you won't have sex with someone else and then you do it, how is that not just another word for a sex lie?
Otherwise if you say that monogamy is a really great part of society that we should thank religion ( which one haha ) for figuring out, then.sorry but that just isn't backed up by any sort of logic I can think of.
In fact, the most logical thing would be for the strong males to have harems, like animals do. That would ensure better genes.
But monogamy has one advantage over this in that it allows a lot of losers to have sex so it probably calms violence down a lot between rival males.

But polygamy would be all upside with contraception.

Anyway, once you know that religions are just made by people, why attribute any morals to them? They were just written by people who already lived in societies advanced enough to have writing, so presumably they had reached some sort of equilibrium and just wrote that shit down.

Onb a side note, ancient civilisations tended to not even be so strict about stealing and killing.

Don't know where the hell you heard that because last I check they had incredibly severe penalties for it. I'd hardly call that "encouraging" when you say "hey if you get caught, I'll kill you, but if you don't get caught, then I'll praise you somehow...like... in 20 years if you tell me, I won't be mad anymore".

Even if you say that spartans encouraged stealing, I'm sure they didn't allow ANY stealing. No fucking way was it alright to go into someone's house and steal all their money and in the morning go "hey I totally pulled it off! We should kill YOU for not being able to stop me!".

I remain SKEPTICAL haha

[RubberTrucky]

At 6/26/09 06:48 PM, poxpower wrote: Obviously straight-out adultery is just lying. You say you won't have sex with someone else and then you do it, how is that not just another word for a sex lie?

Lying isn't so bad either. i mean it's up to them to find out the truth.

In fact, the most logical thing would be for the strong males to have harems, like animals do. That would ensure better genes.

Fair enough.

On a different topic, can I borrow your girlfriend next week? ;-)